A lot of Democrats, and even a few Republicans claim that the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, was based on lies, against international law, and is a complete failure. (I disagree with all three, but that is the subject of another post).  Many, if not most who do hold that position advocate that we immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq, or at least set a date in which all US Forces will be removed.  None have presented (that I know of) any type of plan of what to do following that withdrawal.

Sure some will say that by Cutting and Running from Iraq will allow us to focus more clearly and dedicate more forces to get Bin Laden. This approach assumes that by killing or capturing a six and a half foot tall terrorist hiding in a hole in Afghanistan we will somehow bring the Global War on Terror to a successful conclusion… Then we can all go back to watching reruns of our favorite sitcoms and reality shows.

Many point to the war in Iraq as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah. To some extent it is. Imagine though, the recruitment levels that Al-Qaeda and Hizbollah will experience when they can proudly claim to the muslim world that they have stood toe to toe with the most powerful military in the world, and won!

Jihadists world wide will dance in the streets, and then launch new and more devastating attacks on US and western interests. Our Allies in the Global War on Terror will question our resolve in defending freedom and democracy. Many will conclude that appeasing the terrorists is their only hope of survival.  

In 1939 we learned that appeasement does not secure peace, it only feeds the appetite of despots. It is a lesson that we should not have to learn again.  

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse has a post entitled IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT. In it he points out several shortcomings of how the administration is prosecuting the war in Iraq, and the criticism is valid. I firmly believe that quiting will be far more disasterous for us as a nation and for the world as a whole. Therefore we need the commitment to wage this war as a war… no half assed approach is going to work here. War is brutal.. we need to ensure that our enemies and those who support them know full well just how brutal it is.

Dumb Ox News also has an opinion piece that is worth the read entitled Fall of the West, What is to be done

Posted to Open Posts at:

Bullwinkle Blog, Mudville Gazette, Stop the ACLU, Blue Star Chronicles 

Bumping this up.. good discussion in the comments

Advertisements

  1. Hi Darrell,

    Thanks for link! Only the hyperlink goes to the Drudge post that got me going on Buchanan’s book and not to my post… here’s that hyperlink:

    http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/08/fall-of-west-what-is-to-be-done.html

    Thanks again! And we should swap links!

    Dumb Ox

  2. Darrell,
    I have actually taken the time to fully read Rick Moran’s, “Iraq: Quit or Commit” post. For me the question does not come down to whether to bring the troops home or not because the invasion was built on lies. The question is what role does the US wish to have in a full blown Iraqi civil war? Because that is really what we have. Rummy may gloss over it and get away with it, but lets face the facts.

    If we want no role, then we need to leave. That is not cowardice, that is not cut and run, that is lets save our hides because in a civil war one side will win when they finally pummel the other side into submission, or both sides will end the civil war after it is clear victory will not be had by either side. Hence, what is the point of a US invasion force in such a situation?

    If we want to take a side, then which side? Sunnis or Shiites? What about the Kurdish north after a side is picked? No doubt they will do what they can to break away immediately.

    Or do we pick defending Iraqi “democracy” and keeping the Iraqi state as presently organized? Which really means having an invasion force caught in the middle, trying to stop Sunnis from blowing up Shiites, who are getting weapons from Iran, while fending off Al-Qaeda militants being armed by Syria, and still keeping Kurds from starting another war in northern Iraq. All of which means more troops in Iraq for quite a long haul with no end in sight. This option can pretty much be labeled more of the same. Who in there right mind can support this? Oh yes, our president.

    Is this what our president is currently advocating to the American people? More of the same? I would say so.

  3. Nota

    I did not write this as a response to Rick Moran’ post. I just used some of what I said here to comment on what Rick wrote.

    If we withdrawal from Iraq now, it doesn’t matter what we say the reason for withdrawal is, that withdrawal will be portrayed and likely seen by the terrorists and the regimes that support them as a US defeat, it would be used as a recruiting tool for a renewed call to Jihad world wide.

    Where do we stand in a potential Iraqi Civil war? I don’t think that Iraq is nearly as close to civil war as the media portrays it. Many of the blogs I read daily portray a far different situation, these are from Troops that are deployed there, as well as blogs like ITM.

    Iraq has a security problem, (This may be the understatement of the year), but a huge part of that security problem is the failure of the Maliki govt to take any significant action against the Medhi army. The dismanteling of this and other similar militias must be a priority for the Coalition forces and the Iraqi military. There has been substantial progress made in doing this, though obviously there is much more we have to do.

    Iraq’s future is in the hands of the Iraqi people. Our forces are not there to decide what that future is, but to help them achieve the destiny they have chosen for their country.

    Thanks for your comment.

    Darrell

  4. I recognize that you didn’t write this in response to Rick Moran’s post. Of course our military is not there to decide the future of the Iraqi people. They are there to enforce through might, the will of our leaders back here. Our leaders back here are the one’s deciding the future of Iraqis. We made that commitment by invading the country in the first place to topple Saddam. We can’t use the excuse that we aren’t there to decide their future because we wish to ignore the implications of having our military occupation force staying in Iraq. Having our forces remain in Iraq means more bloodshed, continued recruitment for insurgents, continued urban guerilla warfare against an enemy that will not rest until our military is out of the country. I think we can agree on this last point.

    To the extent that there is a civil war in Iraq really depends on the present military power we wish to exert to kill the urban guerilla insurgency, the building up of the Iraqi government forces to combat the insurgents in the future, and our ability to assist those government leaders exert the same military might after US forces withdraw.

    If we don’t commit to an expansion of troops to quash more insurgents, train Iraqi forces, then all we will be doing is enabling the “churning”. By churning I mean, we kill an insurgent, but at least one other is willing and ready to take his place if not more. Likewise, the insurgents kill one of our military personnel and then we fill the loss with another troop. And we go round and round the churning wheel with no goal in sight.

    This is a turning point in our policy on Iraq. On that point I agree. I don’t think that more of the same is what we want.

  5. Nota;

    Again thank you for your comment. There is much I disagree with you on, but appreciate the civil nature of the discussion.

    They are there to enforce through might, the will of our leaders back here. Our leaders back here are the one’s deciding the future of Iraqis. We made that commitment by invading the country in the first place to topple Saddam.

    Our forces are not there enforcing the will of our administration they are there enabling the people of Iraq to determine their own destiny and forge their own future. The Millions that proudly displayed their purple dyed fingers provide the evidence that process has begun.

    Having our forces remain in Iraq means more bloodshed, continued recruitment for insurgents, continued urban guerilla warfare against an enemy that will not rest until our military is out of the country.  

    Are you suggesting that once our troops leave there will be no more bloodshed, recruitment for Jihad against the west will cease and that our enemies will lay down their arms and commit themselves to a life of peace and prosperity? If so I don’t think you could be more wrong.. If Coalition forces were to leave before Iraqi security forces are capable of managing the security situation on their own chances are there will be far more bloodshed, as the terrorists, insurgents or various militias would have free reign. As I pointed out in the original Post Recruitment to the various Jihad causes not only in Iraq but world wide would likely reach new highs as they would likely use any US withdrawal as a claim of victory. Note Hizbollaha’s increased stature in the Islamic community following their claim of victory over Israeli forces in Lebanon. This is despite the loss of 300 – 400 Hizbollah terrorists, the destruction of many fortified positions, and much of the infrastructure that is necessary for Hizbollah to re-arm. If that is a military victory one has to wonder what a defeat looks like. We have been fighting the same enemy since at least the late 70’s. They may have had different names, different tactics, and different areas of operation, but the enemy has consistently been an ideology of hatred and totalitarianism based on Islamic fundamentalism. Assuming they will rest if we leave Iraq is fallacy, if not a bit naieve.

    If we don’t commit to an expansion of troops to quash more insurgents, train Iraqi forces, then all we will be doing is enabling the “churning”. By churning I mean, we kill an insurgent, but at least one other is willing and ready to take his place if not more. Likewise, the insurgents kill one of our military personnel and then we fill the loss with another troop. And we go round and round the churning wheel with no goal in sight.

    You bring up a good point here, though I am not certain that more boots on the ground is the answer. Rather I think a change in how we are fighting the war. As I said in the original post War is brutal, we need the commitment to wage this war as a war… no half assed approach is going to work here. We need to ensure that our enemies and those who support them know full well just how brutal it is.

    Thanks again..

    Darrell




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: