Why the U.S. Cannot Timetable Iraq
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 02:49PM Bottom Line Up Front: A timetable for withdrawal in Iraq would be a disaster.
“This little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century -- it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend.” -Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s description of this war on terror is exactly right. The conflict in Iraq is so intertwined with multifaceted complexities that it truly is “little understood and unfamiliar, and complex for people to comprehend,” yet political opponents have consolidated the subject into convenient and misleading sound bytes to confuse the American public and hurt the war effort. The battle for Iraq is too deep for arm chair quarterbacking.
Democrats continue to press for a troop withdrawal, as soon as 4-6 months. This has been the mainstay of the Democratic agenda for three years, but a timetable for withdrawal is a recipe for disaster, and not just for Iraq. The United States and the entire international community would feel the ripple affect of this failure for decades if not a century to come. Withdrawing US troops from Iraq based on a date rather than based on Iraq’s stability will not be a question mark at the end of this statement called “Iraq”, but it will be a bold period that concludes in absolute and abject failure.
Not only do suggestions by Democrats for a withdrawal from Iraq in the near future put Iraqis in a precarious position, but it also shows a tremendous lack of concern for the consequences and a lack of understanding of history, the current climate in the Middle East and the enemy with whom we are at war.
To think that US security would benefit from a withdrawal is naïve at best. The “America is less safe because of Iraq” argument fails at every level. One need look no further than the number of terrorist attacks on US soil before and after 9/11 to make the right conclusion. An abandoned Iraq, sandwiched between Iran and Syria, would be infiltrated by Iranian backed terrorism and Shia extremism. Not only would Muslims never trust America again, but their predicament would cause moderate Muslims to once and for all reject the U.S. interventions. Islamic extremism would have greater appeal to the moderate Muslim than sympathizing with U.S. democratically backed initiatives, resulting in alienation of moderates, the ruination of America’s reputation and the sort of ruthless oppression too commonly associated with Islamic states.
A betrayed Iraq could also make Afghanistan the next target by extremists, becoming another Iraq or reverting to its former state ruled by the Taliban. It is entirely possible that if Democrats take the White House in 2008, they would call for a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as well. If Democrats want to honor the theory that American lives have been taken in vain, withdrawal is the way to make that theory a reality. There will have been absolutely no advantage, no noble cause, and no justification for loss of life, especially considering that the Middle East would be more volatile and a bigger threat than before 9/11.
To say we shouldn’t have entered Iraq in the first place is beside the point. It is clear that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The New York Times noted one of the Iraqi documents seized during the 2003 invasion showed essentially that pre-2003 Iraq had more developed nuclear know-how than Iran and North Korea. This sustains the international belief that Saddam Hussein was indeed capable of and engaging in the development of a nuclear program. Now that Iran and North Korea, 2/3s of the “axis of evil”, have acquired nuclear capability, all that is left is for the US to leave the region and Iran to move in and influence the area even more. There is no doubt that 2/3rds of an axis of evil is preferable to 3/3rds.
Withdrawing also means that the terrorists win. Osama bin Laden and our enemies believe that with too many US casualties, America will flee like a paper tiger. Interestingly enough, it was Democrat John Murtha back in 1993 who urged then President Clinton to conduct a full withdrawal of troops from Somalia. Leaving Iraq will ensure the bolstering of Iran and North Korea’s resolve that they can continue to develop and use nuclear weapons.
Withdrawal would also galvanize Muslim extremist movements against the United States. If some thing the war in Iraq has created more terrorists, it will surely do so with a U.S. withdrawal. 9/11 and the war on terror has also produced many more American patriots to fight our enemy abroad, and the resolution of the soldier would vanish; why should anyone join a military that withdrawals from global operations making any sacrifice complete vanity?
President Bush’s objective to create a democracy in Iraq and the Middle East appeals to pro-west or moderate Muslims, like those in Iran. The choices are between a radial Islam which causes death and destruction or a democracy in a Muslim country which affords the freedom to choose elements of western democracy that are beneficial to their culture.
We’ve already seen the consequences of leaving Vietnam in which the South Vietnamese were slaughtered. Iraq in 1991, US forces left after liberating Kuwait and Saddam murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis for sympathizing with Coalition forces. We left Somalia in 1993 when the going got tough and now Somalia is an al-Qaeda headquarters. No country in the world would trust America’s resolve again. The difficulties this places troops in for future conflicts is immeasurable.
Who would the world turn to in time of trouble? The United Nations does nothing more than threaten the world’s deviants with paper resolutions that continue to be broken time and time again with no recourse.
What if the US pulls out with Saddam Hussein still sitting in a jail cell? There are still supporters who vow to help him regain power.
Democrats accuse Iraqis of not trying hard enough and not wanting a democratic Iraq badly enough. This is easy to say out of ignorance and a lack of concern for Iraqis as human beings. Hundreds of Iraqis line up outside of police stations to join, knowing they are targets of the suicide bomber, who is funded and aided by Iran, blows himself up. Yet they continue to join Iraqi military and police forces to better their country. Iraqi and US military sources all say that the biggest problem and interference in Iraq is not sectarian violence, but Iranian involvement. Pulling out of Iraq means a green light for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his plan for Islamic domination throughout the region.
Arguably the most important reason why we cannot leave Iraq on a timetable but must wait for stabilization is because of Iraqis themselves. With a timetable for withdraw, Iraqis would be faced with the choice of reliving the slaughter of 1991, being targeted by sectarian militias or terrorists and dying for a lost cause or supporting the insurgency and struggle for power. This would guarantee total defeat in Iraq a troubled Middle East.
Democracy takes time. We cannot abandon Iraq. While bombings and blood running through Baghdad is more sensational for network news, there is also a tremendous about of good happening in Iraq, despite the Democrats plot to sacrifice Iraqis for political maneuvering. The blog Wake Up America chronicles much of the progress. Commentator Glenn Beck produced this outstanding video. This is a MUST WATCH:
In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents, giving Democrats a 51-49 majority in the US Senate, since the Independents will caucus with the Dems. In the House of Representatives, Democrats in January will possess a 233-202 majority. The truth is that President Bush will veto any resolution passed by the Senate and Congress that threatens Iraq with a timetable for defeat. The Congress needs a 2/3rd vote to override a Presidential veto, about 290 votes in all. However, if moderate to liberal Republicans succumb to pressure, it is hypothetically possible that a timetable could be implemented. Iraq is counting on this not being the case and we cannot let Iraq down.
The question remains: "How do so-called compassionate Democrats justify the disastrous consequence for Iraqis and the Middle East if the United States abandons Iraq?" We're awaiting their answer.
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Right Wing Guy Wake Up America
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/772603
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
I got news for you- Muslims don't trust us and never have. As to rejecting our "interventions", I can't imagine any Islamic person accepting them.
"I got news for you- Muslims don't trust us and never have. As to rejecting our "interventions", I can't imagine any Islamic person accepting them."
It depends upon which Muslims we're talking about. Clearly the Democrats screwed up with the United Arab Emirates with the Dubai Port deal and that hurt us BIG TIME in the Arab world, but our experience in Iraq has been that many do trust us. The West and Islamic Middle Eastern countries don't usually have a love connection, but I can name a few besides Iraqis who like the US.
Kuwait.
Iran has a growing middle class and college population that loves America. There is a movement within Iran to challenge the current regime that is resulting in Iranian students being disciplined and expelled. These students and the middle class will be necessary for regime change in Iran, and as I'm sure you're following Iran in current events, there will need to be regime change. If we were to pull out of Iraq, Iran would not trust American support for internal regime change.
This happened in Iraq in the early 90's... the U.S. supported regime change by supporting and encouraging certain groups within Iraq to overthrow Saddam. When the U.S. liberated Kuwait from Saddam in 1991, we didn't help with that regime change and tens of thousands of Iraqis who opposed Saddam were slaughtered. The U.S. already has that working against us as far as our reputation in the Middle East.
If you don't believe Iraqi's welcomed the U.S. in 2003 to topple Saddam and liberate the country, you are very mistaken. That would count as an "accepted intervention". Kuwait as well.
This is not to downplay the significance of Islamic distaste for Western values and American's association with Israel, but there is an entire moderate Muslim population that is workable, meaning they can be won if we play our cards right.
Dems are making this impossible.
But I have to qualify that statement that Islamofascists are against all of us. We conservatives don't meet their agenda either, hon. We conservatives in America don't slaughter our women for infractions. Showing our faces in public is allowed. Leaving home to go shopping without the permission of our husbands is allowed. Walking down the street wearing pants, and even shorts, is allowed. Talking back to your husband doesn't mean a death sentence. We women don't have to be valued less than camels in America, and Islam can't handle that. Where, may I ask, are the Women's Rights groups in this country? Why are they not standing up for the outrageous intollerance of Islamic men? They are so silent! Would it be possible that they feel they might be targeted to have their heads chopped off? Tell me it's not true! I thought they were braver than that. The surragates that got us women the vote in this country were brave. The new generation of America's women's rights groups are total wimps! When the tough get going, they wuss out. Shame on them!
This is a great post, my friend, and the Video you put up is awesome! Bless you for what you try to accomplish. The internet may, in the end, make all the difference in the world.
As I have said many times in the past, at this point the Islamofascists don't need any more reasons to hate us. It is also true that Liberals and Muslim Radicals have many of the same talking points...so exact at times that it is just scary!
The irony that women's rights groups (and the ACLU, for that matter) do not attack these countries for their terrible record on civil and women's rights is a deafening silence, and a sad testiment, indeed.
It reminds me of the African American irony that we have just seen earlier this month. Black families tend to be conservative and churchgoing folk, with many of the same values as Conservative Republicans. And yet they continue to vote for a party that has completely forgotten them (save on the days leading up to an election) and does not share their moral values.
Anyhow, more to your article: It would be GREAT if we could pronounce a timetable to AMERICANS AND ALLIES ONLY...but it doesn't work that way, so we simply cannot.
As always, GREAT JOB my friend!
Timmer
- I think anyone with a working brain cell or two, knew as soon as the Dems got in, "cut and run" would dissapear faster than a bottle of ripple at a half-way house. But even so, it is a little surprising when they finally had to go front and center, the Dems dropped their pants so fast.
- Wonder how the Left is taking it. There's been a paucity of post's on the subject at any of the moonus battas blog sites so far. With the demise of the "ear mark king" today, maybe a little common sense and cred is returning to the moderate side of the Dem party.
I don't understand why everyone wants complete knowledge of the plans and stratigies of our military.From where I sit it appears that they are doing a fine job.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
Blessings
http://patriotfiles.org/
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
Good post, Amy...
AubreyJ.........