Every once in awhile, I remember why I started blogging. It wasn't to make money, to get traffic, to get links. It was simply to get thoughts out of my head and on to "paper," something I learned in psych class. There are those times when the same thought keeps going through ones head about some subject. You know, the kind that has you talking to the radio, or yourself, in the car or in the shower. You just cannot believe what you read or heard, and just want to respond. Blogging is a forum to do that. It is cathartic.
I was content to leave a comment at Hooah Wife and Friends originally, but, just wasn't cutting it.
Anyhow, Silke (who just posted it, not blaming her or anything) links to a post by Excitable Andy, which goes thus
Saddam is gone. There is no longer any potential threat of weapons of mass destruction from a failed Iraqi state. The actual reasons for fighting this war in the first place have therefore evaporated.
Bush says it would be a defeat against Al-Qaeda. But Al-Qaeda was not the presence in Iraq before the war that it is now. And occupying a Muslim country indefinitely is not exactly a way to staunch jihadist recruits either.
Most grown-ups in Washington, even Obama, are arguing for a redeployment out of Iraq that would retain an active potential to take on Al-Qaeda if it were to establish an enclave in Iraq more dangerous than the base it has already established in Pakistan. And if Iraq’s Shi’ites and Sunni tribes take on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then we will have scored a huge victory by exposing the real battle that can only be fought by Muslims against other Muslims.
Now, I do not mind calling Andrew Sullivan "Excitable Andy," which seems to be a smear. But, since he is pretty much calling anyone who doesn't agree with cut and run a child, so be it. I won't take the higher road. There is no point in it.
The actual reasons for fighting the war were not simply to "find WMD." If E.A. would read the 2003 State of the Union, or that little law signed (rightly) by President Clinton, called the Iraq Liberation Act, he would know that. It is an old, tired argument.
Now, "redeployment," while not exactly new, is not tired, so, I have to ask, where exactly do the cut and runner's want to redeploy to? Right now, we are fighting Islamic jihadists on the ground of our choice, rather then the hostile and home court terrain of Afghanistan. Yes, there is still some fighting in Afghanistan, but not near what we are doing in Iraq. Shall we move said fight to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, maybe Yemen? Would they let us? Have any who suggest redeployment asked? Can we move all of them to Diego Garcia? Back to bases in Europe? Not much of a ready response when it takes 8 hours or more to get to the battlefield, eh?
Would Iraq let us back in after we abandoned them? Of course, abandoning them may end up with one or both of two things. Massive fighting leading to hundreds of thousands, or more, of deaths, and/or Al Qaeda and Iran running the country.
So, redeployment supporters, I ask you, will you take ownership if that happens? Will you take ownership if history books discuss the "killing fields of Iraq?" Will you do anything if that happens, or turn your backs, as you did when America was forced out of Vietnam, resulting in massive killings?
Will you take ownership if terrorist groups and Iran control Iraq, allowing them to dominate the Middle East, where, yes, a great bit of the worlds' oil resides? Will you take ownership when gas is $6, $7, $8 or higher a gallon, driving up the price on everything? Will you take ownership if Israel is destroyed, and Muslim terrorism runs rampant and unchecked around the world?
Will you?
Sure, not everything has gone peachy in Iraq, but, hey, it is a war, and Monday Morning QB'ing is easy. And, I will state uncatagorically, we made a big mistake in the initial part of the war, when we should have known that the Iraq army had no morale, and would surrender and/or amscray in droves, as they did during Desert Storm. That is not to question the courage of those who served in the Iraqi military, but that they had no reason to really fight, no discipline, no proper training, poor weapons upkeep. When the creme' de la creme', ie, the Republican Guard, is giving up to journalists, you know you should expect something like that to happen again after 12 years of sanctions.
But, that is in the past, what is done is done. What to we do now? Will you own what happens, redeployment folks? Will you take ownership of the diminishing of the America military, ala mid to late 70's? Will you take ownership of our allies around the world losing trust in us? They may not like us, may like to demean us, but, they have always known they can count on us. But not if we pull out prematurely.
Will you take ownership of bad countries and groups around the world knowing that we are a paper tiger? Will you take ownership when they know they can push us to do what they want, like they did to Spain, and then keep hitting us?
Will you?
More: Looks like John Hawkins (Right Wing News) had similar ideas.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog At MoreWhat.com, Mark My Words, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Pet's Garden Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The World According to Carl, Dumb Ox Daily News, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
WT patriot – I saw what the ‘rules of engagement’ / rules of NON-engagement did to our casualties in the Vietnam War as a USMC brat at the USN Hospital in Philly…no arms…limbs…eyes…, not to mention the psychological damages…and in the Gulf War we had the islamo basturds on the run and we were told just to liberate Kuwait and cease fire! The treasonous and second guessing political pimps and prostitutes in D.C. that have tied our young warriors arms behind their backs in fighting a ‘limited war’ make me sick to my stomach. History is repeating itself all over again. So sad…
I think we all know the answer to your questions WT. The will not take ownership of the consequences of their policies. They will instead try to lay the blame for the failure at the feet of the people that tried to do the right thing.
They never showed the slightest remorse for the carnage that the communist regime visited upon South Viet Nam after we pulled out of that war at their bidding.
They are responsible in so many ways for the lack of respect the United States has overseas. They are responsible for the diminishment of our prestige.
But they will never take ownership of it. Instead they will lay the blame at the feet of the people they disparage.
They won’t take ownership because they’ll simply deny that anything bad happened. They’ll change the history books without batting an eyelash.
I like one thing Senator Dole said the other night — we’re in Iraq right now because the Democratically elected government of Iraq WANTS US THERE.
I was going to write what your other commenters wrote. OF COURSE, we know the answer to that question. There will be some rationalization or the other. They still haven’t taken ownership of the results of their blackmailing the US gov’t into abandoning Vietnam. They deny there were bad results, yet we are still paying for that.
As to the world not liking us – that’s no different than employees not liking their boss or people not liking the rich people up the hill. We would not have the immigration problems we have if this was such an awful place.
What’s Everybody Talking About…
Taking a look at what’s going on from my blogroll ….
One of my favorite bloggers, William Teach of The Pirate’s Cove, goes back to his roots and remembers why he started blogging to begin with. He then has his say about the ‘red…
Teach, I didn’t read Andrew’s comment about “grown-ups†as a slight against those who oppose a troop withdrawal. On the contrary I thought it was the exact opposite. He is saying that of those who are calling for redeployment, the “grown-ups†are the ones who understand that it cannot be a total and immediate withdrawal. The implication is that those calling for a total withdrawal, regardless of the consequences, are the children.
I understand your frustration but there really is a middle-ground here. If you are saying that our presence alone is the only thing keeping the Sunnis and Shiites from slaughtering each other than you are committing our military to an indefinite occupation it can barely handle now. I do think we have an obligation to fix this mess but it may be too late.
By the way, you asked me on my post “how do we know that Al Qaeda wasn’t a presence in Iraq prior to the war?†and I answered your question but then you came back and said nothing I write will change your mind. What was wrong with the two reports I cited and why did you ask in the first place?
And Surrender Gorilla Murtha had the gall to bring up ‘impeachment’ again this Sunday? Oh those Woodstock retread acid hippie dipsticks! The INDEPENDENTS will decide the 2008 election – book it.
I thank you all for the comments. It may not be fair to use Excitable Andy as the whipping boy, but I am just so tired of those on the left wanting to cut and run, and refusing to take ownership. There are just some days when I just do not get the liberal mind.
And, Silke, multiple investigations, including the 9/11 commission, showed that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. At one point, they were in discussions to move their base of ops to Iraq. Furthermore, Saddam was a major supporter of Islamic terrorism.
The basic facts are, if you want to pull out prematurely, then you own the defeat and all that accompanies it. You cannot lay it at Bush’s feet.
There is a middle ground. It is called Democrats being responsible, and going to see the president to find out what is going on, and how we can get out with a win, and doing this in private, as war discussions such as that should be. Instead, they use the war as a political tool to gain power. Disgusting.
Andrew Sullivan is a conservative writer with some libertarian leanings. I have voted Republican in every Presidential election since I started voting. I know it’s convenient to lump everyone together but I think it’s better to stick to the issues.
Teach said: multiple investigations, including the 9/11 commission, showed that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Teach, please read those reports again, you are missing the point…
This is from Statement No. 15 – Overview of the Enemy (page 5): “Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.â€
http://www.futurebrief.com/911enemy.pdf