Posted by
arandomguy on Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:22:45 AM
Despite testimony from General Abazaid, head US commander in Iraq, that premature withdrawl from Iraq would put us in the same state as we were in during Vietnam, and despite the fact that withdrawing would put our troops in permanent danger, our country in permanent danger, and destroy all we have worked for in Iraq, some House and Senate democrats are already demanding a withdrawl within 4 to 6 months.
This is led by Senate Armed Services Chairman-to-be Carl Levin, who said today that: "We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."
What Carl evidently fails to understand, is that removing the US troops prematurely would cause a catastrophe in the mideast. Iraq is a mess, no doubt about it. I'm upset that Bush and company have insisted on fighting a limited war with "measured responses." I've said since the beginning that the war must be total war if we are to secure victory, and this is precisely why. Limited responses get us bogged down and stuck.
That said, we cannot leave now. If we do, Iraq will plunge into civil war. They are not in civil war now, though they are most certainly on the cusp of plunging into one. Furthermore, the terrorists have (again) made their goal exceptionally clear. They will not stop until they have blown up the whitehouse.
There are no preconditions to their threat. They don't say "If you leave Iraq, we will leave you alone." They simply say, "We want to kill you and destroy your government." Whether we are in Iraq or not, the islamofascists will continue to come after us. And if we are not in Iraq, then we will be at home. I've made the case before, that no matter how bad the fighting in Baghdad gets, it's still better than doing the fighting in Boston.
What the house and senate democrats fail to understand, is the consequences of withdrawl. They see only the political aspect of the war - that the American people are losing support for the war. Or rather, that the American people are tired of being bogged down. The American people supported this war, and they still support the mission. But as evidenced by the elections, they are tired of Bush's handling of the war. I myself am tired, as mentioned previously, because I want a stronger, more total war that will demolish the enemy and make it safe for us to start rebuilding the country.
I predicted this would happen. I felt that if the Democrats gained power, they would immediately start attacking the Iraq War. I have no problems attacking how the war is being fought, as long as all sides have the same objective in mind, victory. If one side is not interested in winning, and only in leaving, then the debate is worthless, because having America lose is simply not an option.
The Democrats fail to draw this distinction. They believe that in order to criticize the war, you must be against the pretenses under which the war began - that is, to depose an evil dictator, find WMD that are undoubtedly now in Syria, liberate millions of people, and above all, establish a geopolitical and military/strategic base of operations in the heart of the mideast, from which to prosecute our war on terror. The democrats failure to understand this is why they are all against the mission. And their objective is not victory. Their objective is simply to run and hide and "hope" that the terrorists don't come after us.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't want to sit around and wait to be attacked. The terrorists have made their goals and objectives abundantly clear, and every action they have taken proves that they are sincere.