I've been hearing again worries about the aftermath of liberating Mosul that was noted several months ago:
The U.N.’s top diplomat in Iraq is warning that the expected military operation to liberate the city of Mosul from Islamic State fighters could become the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis.
One, I find it odd that the problem of a proper plan in place for post-liberation is considered an excuse to leave human beings under the continued control of savage jihadis. Really?
And two, for a Democratic Party that spend considerable effort blasting the Bush 43 administration for not having a plan for post-liberation Iraq in 2003 (which was not true), how is it possible for a Democratic administration to not have a plan more than two years after our president announced we would help Iraq liberate their country from ISIL's advances?
Of course, it took Democrats three years after the 2003 invasion of Iraq to come out with their glorious plan (avert your eyes, puny mortals!) for post-war Iraq, so perhaps I expect too much of them.
But why isn't there a big-brained, friggin' awesome plan in place by now to deal with post-liberation Mosul?
Lord knows we are almost to the point of matching the 30-month interval between the surprise attack on our forces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the D-Day landings in France on June 6, 1944, when you measure the time between the fall of Mosul in June 2014 and the beginning of the Mosul liberation that is supposed to kick off sometime by December 2016.
So you can't say we haven't had the time to buy tents and dried milk, eh? What's the major malfunction? Are we still short on nuance, or something?
