>It pertains to this discussion because it's being portrayed as a scandal by your vaunted European press. So, they are either misrepresenting it, don't know how to define a scandal, or they don't understand how Dutch government works. Which is it?
>
>>Your government had to change their initial goal to establish a democracy in iraq, because it was not realistic in a country where no-one really understands what it means and their culture is build upon strong dictatorship.
>
>So we should have just bombed the smack out of Afghanistan and left it there to rot?
>
>No, I don't think so. Regime change was a primary goal in both countries. Status quo was not acceptable. The Afghanis seem to seriously want peace and prosperity for their country. The Iraqis appear to have embraced the idea of democracy, even if they don't quite understand how it works. In any event, to dismiss them as you have is unfair. The jury is still out on our efforts in both countries, but at least we are trying.


Out of respect for the thoughtfulness of your messages in general I will just state this and leave it at that. I think you may be seriously naive about the effect we are having in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have no tradition of or desire for democracy as we know it. That's what the administration seems unwilling / unable to understand.