Why the U.S. Cannot Timetable Iraq
16th Nov 2006, 14:15 GMT
“This little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century — it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend.” - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s description of this war on terror is exactly right. The conflict in Iraq is so intertwined with multifaceted complexities that it truly is “little understood and unfamiliar, and complex for people to comprehend,” yet political opponents have consolidated the subject into convenient and misleading sound bytes to confuse the American public and hurt the war effort. The battle for Iraq is too deep for arm chair quarterbacking. Democrats continue to press for a troop withdrawal, as soon as 4-6 months. This has been the mainstay of the Democratic agenda for three years, but a timetable for withdrawal is a recipe for disaster, and not just for Iraq. The United States and the entire international community would feel the ripple affect of this failure for decades if not a century to come. Withdrawing US troops from Iraq based on a date rather than based on Iraq’s stability will not be a question mark at the end of this statement called “Iraq”, but it will be a bold period that concludes in absolute and abject failure. Not only do suggestions by Democrats for a withdrawal from Iraq in the near future put Iraqis in a precarious position, but it also shows a tremendous lack of concern for the consequences and a lack of understanding of history, the current climate in the Middle East and the enemy with whom we are at war. To think that US security would benefit from a withdrawal is naïve at best. The “America is less safe because of Iraq” argument fails at every level. One need look no further than the number of terrorist attacks on US soil before and after 9/11 to make the right conclusion. An abandoned Iraq, sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iran, would be infiltrated by Iranian backed terrorism and Shia extremism. Not only would Muslims never trust America again, but their predicament would cause moderate Muslims to once and for all reject the U.S. interventions. Islamic extremism would have greater appeal to the moderate Muslim than sympathizing with U.S. democratically backed initiatives, resulting in alienation of moderates, the ruination of America’s reputation and the sort of ruthless oppression too commonly associated with Islamic states. A betrayed Iraq could also make Afghanistan the next target by extremists, becoming another Iraq or reverting to its former state ruled by the Taliban. It is entirely possible that if Democrats take the White House in 2008, they would call for a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as well. If Democrats want to honor the theory that American lives have been taken in vain, withdrawal is the way to make that theory a reality. There will have been absolutely no advantage, no noble cause, and no justification for loss of life, especially considering that the Middle East would be more volatile and a bigger threat than before 9/11. To say we shouldn’t have entered Iraq in the first place is beside the point. It is clear that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The New York Times noted one of the Iraqi documents seized during the 2003 invasion showed essentially that pre-2003 Iraq had more developed nuclear know-how than Iran and North Korea. This sustains the international belief that Saddam Hussein was indeed capable of and engaging in the development of a nuclear program. Now that Iran and North Korea, 2/3s of the “axis of evil”, have acquired nuclear capability, all that is left is for the US to leave the region and Iran to move in and influence the area even more. There is no doubt that 2/3rds of an axis of evil is preferable to 3/3rds. Withdrawing also means that the terrorists win. Osama bin Laden and our enemies believe that with too many US casualties, America will flee like a paper tiger. Interestingly enough, it was Democrat John Murtha back in 1993 who urged then President Clinton to conduct a full withdrawal of troops from Somalia. Leaving Iraq will ensure the bolstering of Iran and North Korea’s resolve that they can continue to develop and use nuclear weapons. Withdrawal would also galvanize Muslim extremist movements against the United States. If some thing the war in Iraq has created more terrorists, it will surely do so with a U.S. withdrawal. 9/11 and the war on terror has also produced many more American patriots to fight our enemy abroad, and the resolution of the soldier would vanish; why should anyone join a military that withdrawals from global operations making any sacrifice complete vanity? President Bush’s objective to create a democracy in Iraq and the Middle East appeals to pro-west or moderate Muslims, like those in Iran. The choices are between a radial Islam which causes death and destruction or a democracy in a Muslim country which affords the freedom to choose elements of western democracy that are beneficial to their culture. We’ve already seen the consequences of leaving Vietnam in which the South Vietnamese were slaughtered. Iraq in 1991, US forces left after liberating Kuwait and Saddam murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis for sympathizing with Coalition forces. We left Somalia in 1993 when the going got tough and now Somalia is an al-Qaeda headquarters. No country in the world would trust America’s resolve again. The difficulties this places troops in for future conflicts is immeasurable. Who would the world turn to in time of trouble? The United Nations does nothing more than threaten the world’s deviants with paper resolutions that continue to be broken time and time again with no recourse. What if the US pulls out with Saddam Hussein still sitting in a jail cell? There are still supporters who vow to help him regain power. Democrats accuse Iraqis of not trying hard enough and not wanting a democratic Iraq badly enough. This is easy to say out of ignorance and a lack of concern for Iraqis as human beings. Hundreds of Iraqis line up outside of police stations to join, knowing they are targets of the suicide bomber, who is funded and aided by Iran, blows himself up. Yet they continue to join Iraqi military and police forces to better their country. Iraqi and US military sources all say that the biggest problem and interference in Iraq is not sectarian violence, but Iranian involvement. Pulling out of Iraq means a green light for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his plan for Islamic domination throughout the region. Arguably the most important reason why we cannot leave Iraq on a timetable but must wait for stabilization is because of Iraqis themselves. With a timetable for withdraw, Iraqis would be faced with the choice of reliving the slaughter of 1991, being targeted by sectarian militias or terrorists and dying for a lost cause or supporting the insurgency and struggle for power. This would guarantee total defeat in Iraq a troubled Middle East. Democracy takes time. We cannot abandon Iraq. While bombings and blood running through Baghdad is more sensational for network news, there is also a tremendous about of good happening in Iraq, despite the Democrats plot to sacrifice Iraqis for political maneuvering. The blog Wake Up America chronicles much of the progress. Commentator Glenn Beck produced this outstanding video. This is a MUST WATCH. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents, giving Democrats a 51-49 majority in the US Senate, since the Independents will caucus with the Dems. In the House of Representatives, Democrats in January will possess a 233-202 majority. The truth is that President Bush will veto any resolution passed by the Senate and Congress that threatens Iraq with a timetable for defeat. The Congress needs a 2/3rd vote to override a Presidential veto, about 290 votes in all. However, if moderate to liberal Republicans succumb to pressure, it is hypothetically possible that a timetable could be implemented. Iraq is counting on this not being the case and we cannot let Iraq down. The question remains: “How do so-called compassionate Democrats justify the disastrous consequence for Iraqis and the Middle East if the United States abandons Iraq?” We’re awaiting their answer. Cross-posted @ Amy’s Blog: Bottom Line Up Front
Latest news from California Conservative:
- Dems Suggest Bush Lead the Way on Iraq
- Dems Suggest Bush Lead the Way on Iraq
- Public Education At Work: California Student Ban Pledge of Allegiance
- Unlike Democrats, Romania Will Not Abandon Iraq
- ACLU Seeks Again to Block Wiretaps
- Why Do Terrorists Prefer Democrats?
- Gen. Pace’s Alternative to the Iraq Study Group
- San Francisco: Past and Present — A Reader’s Retrospective
- San Francisco School Board Votes to Dump JROTC Program
- Who Is Against The JROTC? (Vote)