This is not unusual. This is how Washington works Fernando. In fact, this is what happens in many governments. There is political wrangling going on before, during, and after military action. With different political parties and varied views on international affairs (thank goodness there are different opinions and everyone has a voice) it takes quite a bit of discussion before any route is chosen. Everyone has an opinion but the only one that is typically known is the one that gets chosen as the 'road to follow' in the longrun. I would guess (strong emphasis on the word 'guess') that many things will be looked at as serious considerations: the best shortterm road to democracy and economic growth in Iraq, the best longterm ..., the cheapest route for the U.S..., the most longterm 'secure' route for the U.S..., the most international progressive route (in terms of the U.S. relations with Europe and improving them)..., etc. It is difficult to say which will have the most 'weight' at this point but I would GUESS that the most cost effective, what will provide the U.S. the most security in the longterm, and what will enhance our European relations the most will win out. As long as it does not embarass the U.S. or give-up what the U.S. government (the one in place now I should say) sees as its control over its right to protect our national security interests. One can only hope with so many voices participating in this discussion that wiser minds will prevail. Hope springs eternal!




>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2914969.stm