Blogs home kansas778
Why We Should Stay: The Risks of Abandoning the War in Iraq
Tackling Iraq was a prudent choice. We have interests in the country economically, as well as tackling tyranny specifically in that area of the world, sending a message to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Liberty has gained a foothold in the middle east, and we need to help it to hold on and grow stronger. Iraq had a stated goal of aggressiveness against Israel, the US and its other neighbors, has aided terrorists in the past and openly given them shelter. No, they didn't have stockpiles of WMDs, but they were actively seeking them and had the ability to begin manufacture of them in a short period of time. On top of that they were run by a tyrannical dictator and his insane sons.An organized withdrawal will hurt our perception with the Muslim world. It will show that we are weak and that Islamofacists can defeat us militarily. A far greater recruiting tool will be the message that the western powers can be defeated. A withdrawal in Iraq will only lead to stiffer resistance in Afghanistan. After all, if they pushed us out of one country, they'll be even more confident they can push us out of another.Very simply put, when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan in 1989, what was the world perception then? The world saw them leaving with their tail between their legs, and bin Laden used the victory as a major recruiting point saying that they were responsible not only for winning the war but for the collapse of the Soviet Union. People are attracted to strength, and pushing us out of Iraq will be a major victory for our enemies, and a powerful recruiting tool. Remember, perception of the truth is often more important than the truth.Regardless of whether you think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, we are there now, and the relevant issue at hand is what to do next. Saying we should leave because we shouldn't have gone in the first place is not an acceptable line of reasoning because that ignores the present realities and our present goals.Defeating Al Qaeda is more than just hunting them down, we must defeat their objectives as well. The world is still a big place, and Al Qaeda exists in many countries (obviously they existed even in the US), so we must defeat them in every way we can because completely eradicating them is unlikely.Al Qaeda's stated goals in Iraq are to expel the US, establish an Islamic government, spread the conflict to Iraq's neighbors, and eventually destroy Israel. Now how do we defeat these goals other than by staying and fighting on?"Won't staying in Iraq just cause the terrorists to fight harder to defeat us?"Regardless of how angry the enemy gets, two countries have fallen to our armies, and that is a major defeat for their cause. The longer we stay, the more impotent they will look. Think about their situation:Bin Laden called Afghanistan "the only Islamic country in the world" and now that version of an Islamic country has fallen and failed. Israel still stands, and they aren't going anywhere, and neither is the pro-western governments in countries like Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden wants to unite all muslims into one nation and get rid of all western influence, and he's further from that than ever. Al Qaeda is not getting any of its goals accomplished and that is thanks to our aggressive actions to prevent them.Is it dangerous to take aggressive actions that will lead to aggression in return? Yes, but I think it is far more dangerous to turn our backs to them and not face the danger now.I don't think it's lost on the people just how quickly our forces were able to defeat's Saddam's army and topple his government. As much as the left wants to talk about us losing the war, we must stop and think about the other side's perspective to see if they are really winning the war.For our enemies, harassing our troops and killing some here and there is not their goal. The ONLY way they can declare victory is by ousting us from the country. We are building permanent bases (and our huge embassy) and we plan to stay for a long time. No matter who the next president is, we aren't going to abandon those bases, and we won't abandon the government we've spent so much money and effort into establishing. We are there to stay, and that is defeat for our enemies."These people don't want democracy"People who do not live in democracies don't understand concepts of limited government or human and civil rights the way we do, as their personal experiences with these concepts are not substantial. There is not much we can do about this other than to support democratic institutions within these countries so that these people can experience them.People won't want to live in a democracy if they don't see any benefit for them. The two biggest reasons that motivate people to want democracy is they see an economic benefit to it and a military one. The economic benefit is surely more powerful and long lasting, but the military one is far more dramatic and noticeable. "[E]ach wave of democratic enthusiasm in the non-democratic world has been preceded, and in large measure encouraged, by some striking military victory of democratic powers over less democratic or undemocratic operations."This is why military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is so important. "Staying the course" may seem like a cheap slogan to some, but it is a relevant means to achieving our ends, which is to make democratic inroads into these countries, because as our history shows, those countries with democratic, constitutional, representative governments are our allies, and from whom we have nothing to fear.By giving up now, we will only reinforce the notion that these people have, which is that democracy is what is weak. By showing them that our form of government is not only economically strong but militarily strong as well, we can give them the incentive to support democratic institutions in their countries as well.
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009 · 35 comments
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 128 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 90 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 80 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 37 comments
- On the street: Which do you prefer, white meat or dark meat? November 26, 2009 · 26 comments
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009 · 25 comments
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 143 comments
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009 · 24 comments
- Blog: Tasering Your Preteen: Can You Imagine? November 24, 2009 · 70 comments
- Double Take: Parent considers home drug testing November 24, 2009
- Heeding heart attack’s message November 26, 2009
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009
- Local residents work together to make donation to Locks of Love November 25, 2009
- Pie Lady makes holidays sweeter November 26, 2009
- Witness claims two took turns killing family March 24, 1960
- Texas guard Ward lost for season November 26, 2009
- Munchers to honor owner at open house November 26, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- High school sweetheart recalls the day his life changed forever April 3, 2005
19 October 2008
at 11:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pay_N_My_Way (Anonymous) says…
Obama is weak, when it comes to Iraq. We need to stay the course.
20 October 2008
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
Obama wants the worst of both worlds. He wants a draw down, which is symbolically a defeat, but he'll not close our bases nor abandon financial support of Iraq, so we'll still be sending tons of money into Iraq, but look like we've been pushed out of the country.
20 October 2008
at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
This entry is also taken and edited from my previous posts here at ljworld.com.
20 October 2008
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
In any case, we will end up fighting the country we tried to save.
20 October 2008
at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
So when do we know when we're done? Just from reading this, it seems like we're gonna be there indefinitely. Do you have an opinion on specific objectives that must be met before we are free to pursue a drawdown and organized withdrawal, or should we not be talking about that yet?
20 October 2008
at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
778, given your comments above, how do you suggest the U.S. respond to al Malaki's demands for a troop withdrawal timetable and an end to the immunity US troops have from prosecution? How long do you believe Muqtada al Sadr will patiently stand by? I suggest to you it won't be as long as we might desire and we are not necessarily the masters of this decision making process. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mid… are we going to do, fight the entire Iraqi population and anyone else that ventures into Iraq in the name of establishing democracy? Beyond that inherent meltdown, ponder for a moment how that will incite the entire Middle East, negatively impact crude oil pricing and further diminish respect for the U.S. within international circles .We still have an unresolved problem in Afghanistan, one that increases in intensity almost geometrically with each passing day. Given that acceleration and General McKiernan's pleas for more troops, how can we ignore their needs? I believe we should urgently implement a mutually agreed upon timetable, work to repair Iraqi infrastructure in that period and exit as gracefully as possible. We will have accomplished all we can given the circumstances. If the Iraqis want to adopt a democratic model of government-great. If not, so be it. Prolonging our presence in Iraq will not inherently enhance Iraqt desire for democracy and will only cost more American lives and dollars needlessly while distracting us from the mission in Afghanistan.
20 October 2008
at 6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
We should stay in Iraq? No thanks. Like most Americans I have grown tired of the bush doctrine and where it has lead us. Iraq, by just about any measure has been a total disaster, and the sooner we get out the better. 5 years, trillions of $$, thousands of American lives, huge blow to American prestige in the world, etc - and nothing to show for it. If you had been paying attention to the events of the past few weeks you would agree that staying in Iraq has nothing to do with our present goals. Oh, and since it appears you are misinformed - Al Qaeda was never in Iraq before we got there.
20 October 2008
at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,And the women come out to cut up what remains,Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains—Rudyard Kipling
20 October 2008
at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
Bad_dog—US troops are not immune from courts-martial, and as to a response to the request for a timetable, I already have talked about why I think such things are a bad idea. I would instead suggest a set of objectives that would need to be met before a drawdown. As for what those would be, we would look to our generals and the department of defense to outline what would be the best way to achieve our overall goals. Regarding more forces in Afghanistan, I don't think we need to have bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, Cuba and all around the world. Leaving Iraq won't increase their desire for democracy either, but staying to ensure they live under democratic institutions will aid in them experiencing them. More importantly, as I say above, showing the military strength and resolve of a country with democratic institutions is the key—we must show not only Iraqis but other peoples in the area that we can't be pushed around, that democratic countries are not just economically strong but militarily as well.
20 October 2008
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says: Oh, and since it appears you are misinformed - Al Qaeda was never in Iraq before we got there.***********************************Sigh* So quick to be condescending. I never say Al Qaeda was previously in Iraq.
20 October 2008
at 8:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
778, my comment regarding immunity was directed toward the growing Iraqi desire to independently prosecute U.S. troops and organizations like Blackwater-irrespective of courts martial.As for your comment regarding objectives, there have been 15 or so in place for an extended period. Where do we stand on satisfying those? We just can't keep moving the goal line indefinitely as circumstances evolve, else we are the ones in danger of being manipulated.With regard to Afghanistan we can't ignore the situation irrespective where we do or don't have bases. I don't really want to get entrenched there indefinitely, but the Bush admin essentialy ignored the situation while it worsened. Now I believe we must address it or suffer the same fate you dread in Iraq.Again, staying in Iraq indefinitely while waiting to see whether they'll adopt democracy is not an answer in my opinion. Get the guidelines out there, set the departure protocols and timelines and then leave. We are now 5-1/2 years out from the invasion. Another 18 months is more than enough for the Iraqis to make up their minds which direction they want to go. It's time for them to step up.
20 October 2008
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
I agree about “moving the goal line,” and that problem is due to a lack of leadership from the President. Perhaps he doesn't want to commit to objectives, or that's just not his plan, but I would publicize our objectives and say what will happen when we meet them. Adding the timetable though sets the stage for a failure, and gives our enemies an easy way to declare victory. They will know that if they can hang on long enough that we'd be forced to abandon the timetable or the objectives. Doing so would be very dishearting to our civilian and military populations.So, if you set a timetable, and things began to get worse as the deadline approaches, do you still complete the drawdown?
20 October 2008
at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
“An organized withdrawal will hurt our perception with the Muslim world.”Like our unorganized presence hasn't? Give me a break. We need to get out, because we will not be successful in building another nation. They must build it for themselves, without us there — after we spend a lot more money and fix the infrastructure that we destroyed.Please remember, we never should have gone in in the first place! The war in Iraq has made us weaker, both as a military and as a financial power. We need to get out as soon as possible.
20 October 2008
at 11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) says: We need to get out, because we will not be successful in building another nation. Why?––––––––––––-They must build it for themselves, without us there Why?––––––––––—Please remember, we never should have gone in in the first place! Regardless, we are there now and must make our policy looking forward to what we should do and not what we should've done.–––––––––––-The war in Iraq has made us weaker, both as a military and as a financial power. How?
21 October 2008
at 12:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
778, what happens if/when objectives are not met? I don't have a lot of reason to be confident Iraq will move forward without clearly established temporal objectives in conjunction with societal and governmental benchmarks. We can not and should not wait indefinitely. I don't believe we should just place objectives out there with vaguely expressed expectations for completion. I'm not sure how much longer the competing interests in Iraq are going to sit by while al Malaki dickers with the US government.Failing to place a reasonable timeline out there for consumption and understanding by the Iraqi public implies both a “take your time attitude” as well as conveying a mindset the US will occupy their country until “we decide we're ready to go”. While a timeline can have drawbacks due to publishing your intentions, it can also motivate those who want to support a foundling democracy into taking affirmative action on an expeditious basis. Have a good night.
21 October 2008
at 8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pay_N_My_Way (Anonymous) says…
The decisions made on a war should be made with the Military Generals. Not some Harvard law school grad that knows nothing about a war. In order for an officer to be promoted to General he/she MUST go to War College. Military officers learn from past wars and from current world dangers. Obama was only present to all the history classes he took. or it seems. (Kind of like his voting record in the Senate.) The surge worked and if we leave now, we will have fail ourselves and Iraq. Bahgdad is safer now than it was 6 months ago. Let's ban together and stay the course. Agree?
23 March 2009
at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srmcglennon (Anonymous) says…
LOL, i love it when people who sit and drink their coffee in the moring deside on whats the best for the troops, troops want to fight, troops are there to die, we do try to avoid it but they are willing to risk their lives for this country and no one gives them a say, its all based on what the guy with a ponytail thinks and the media feeds him. Personally I think we are doing a great job over there and pulling out now just showes how the American public is a whore to the highest bidder.