I don't understand how you can say "decreasing violence is certainly not a success." If saving peoples' lives, especially lives that by our own fault are threatened to be lost, is not success, then I don't know what is. You ask, "Where will Republicans take us from here?" I don't know the answer to that question, but I can tell you that wherever it is, it will be a better place than where we would have been if we'd followed Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, and Carl Levin's advice to leave Iraq as it is. What kind of irresponsible behavior are we promoting in this country?
You say it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and perhaps it was, but two wrongs never make a right, so leaving Iraq to fend for itself after we destroyed its infrastructure, government, and sovereignty is just a flat out crime against humanity. That's why we are there, and that's why we will stay. The reality is it's not popular for Democrats to agree with Bush's stay the course strategy, and that's what drives them to the irresponsible alternative of leaving Iraq. Mark my words on this one. If a Democrat goes to the White House next year, he or she will not bring our troops home because then it's their political capital at risk, and nobody--Democrat or Republican--is going to leave the Middle East at war to save face on a policy commitment they made when running for office.
When we put our troops on Iraqi soil, we undertook a moral duty to bring peace to the Iraqi people, regardless of the motive for the war. We are still Americans in this country, and I don't frankly care whose fault the Iraq war is, it will be your fault and my fault if we don't do everything within our power to restore civility to those people. We broke it, and now we have to fix it.
We are not cowards in this country.
-Elephant
2 comments:
And as for your other comments, I too would much rather be a Democrat who opposed the surge than a Republican or Democrat who supported George Bush in his decision to go to Iraq in the first place. But unfortunately, there simply aren't many Democrats out there who opposed the war at the outset. And of that subset who did, even fewer objected to it on the premise of the conflict that has to come to pass.
The reason why it is not a success is because it gets us nowhere toward your stated goal of bringing peace to the region. It is like putting a bandaid on a large cut. Take the bandaid off and it will bleed again. The problem with Iraq is success there will take much more them a temporary troop surge. It will require, as we have discussed, a very long term occupancy, and that is a political non-starter. The public just won't support it. So what do we do? We can wait a few years and eventually pull out leaving the region in just as big of a mess as it currently is (and all the while our reputation in the international community continues to decline, we continue to create additional terrorists who are angered by our presence in the region, and we continue to lose precious lives and spend money we don't have because of George Bush's tax cuts), or we can start planning for withdrawal now (and start focusing on other non-military solutions) in order to minimize loss of life and restore civility when we leave. I don't think it immoral to recognize the realities in Iraq and deal with the cards we are dealt. The alternative is to keep wishing for that Royal Flush that will never come. Call me crazy if I don't trust the same people who got us into this mess to get us out. Maybe it's because they spoke with the same moral certainty about going in to Iraq that you now do about staying there. The crime against humanity has already been committed, and staying there with no rational policy for how to fix things will only perpetuate that crime.
This is truly a sad discussion, and Iraq is certainly the defining issue of our time. Only history will reveal which of us is right, but I have a suspicion that even if you're wrong, you and your fellow elephants will find a way to spin it. But I'll mark your words anyway. :)
Post a Comment