What do you mean? He was being a typical stereotypical conservative warhawk? But you're right, he didn't sound thirsty. He sounded like a nutcase. Boots on the ground? We still not learning lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq?
He's not being
purely a war hawk.
Neo-Cons see Iraq as our sole strategic opportunity to permanently fixing the balance of power in the middle east.
The inherent instability of the region would always serve as breeding ground for fukkery.
For the government, Iraq is seen as our way
into the middle east.
The government also knew, since the late 80's, that Iraq would require 20+ years of occupation.
But
Somebody is eventually going to have to occupy Iraq. Whether its the US, Iran, Russia, Turkey, etc. It's a giant power vacuum.
No one wants to be stuck in Iraq for two decades. It would be a clusterfukk internally and externally to occupy. (The Saudi's and Iran would undermine any western occupation)
Point is Iraq isn't a sustainable political endeavor.
General Powell and George Bush Sr. knew it back in the 80s. That's why we didn't formally invade Iraq back in the 90s.
We thought 9/11 would change that. We were wrong.
Our Politicians have (wisely) been the kicking the Iraq can down the road.
Personally, I hope our future presidents kick it right past my lifetime.
If Graham wants to address Iraq (the middle east) now rather than later.
It's a fools errand but it's up to him.
For now were stuck building a diplomatic house of cards.
some WW1 shyt.