Four years in Iraq
Tuesday marks the four-year anniversary of the war in Iraq.
When the war began, most Americans were in support of it. Today, a majority of Americans are opposed to it. As the war's popularity has diminished, so has the popularity of President George W. Bush and the Republican party. The war's unpopularity is the main reason why Republicans lost the House in 2006.
Here in Northwest Florida, most people still support the war. Many of the folks at Eglin and Hurlburt have helped fight the war in the past four years, so it's a much more personal effort here than in some parts of the country. When I talk to soldiers who have been in Iraq, they generally tell me three things: 1) The majority of the Iraqi people support our efforts to create democracy there; 2) The support for the war here at home is critical to them; and 3) In doing their duty, our soldiers are putting their lives on the line.
I'd like you to share your views about the war in Iraq, so please send respond to this blog.
As a starting point, here are a few thoughts of my own:
First, it doesn't make good sense to set a withdrawal date for our troops. If we do that, everyone -- the foreign terrorists, Iran, Syria, and the Sunnis and Shiites who are engaged in Iraq's civil war -- will just wait us out.
And, it appears that the current troop surge is helping. Democracy won't take root unless the Iraqis feel more secure, and the additional troops appear to have improved the security.
But the troop surge is only a temporary solution. The Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own safety, and for their own government, and they need to show progress very, very soon. Like within the next couple of months.
Send me your thoughts.
Pat
posted by Patrick Rice @ 8:45 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
You are very accurate, and I agree with your comments. I add though, that like Kathleen Parker's opinion column yesteday pointed out, I believe the American people and government have been intellectualy dishonest. Our Iraq debate should be discussed openly for what it is: "Our war is not against terror but against a specific enemy — a virulent, religion-based ideology." Considering that the majority of Americans won't even turn out to vote, I seriously doubt that a majority of us understand the willingness to die for any principals or idealogy. Thus, the Iraq debate needs to be framed properly.
We have to break down the concerns of offending some Islamic fundamentalists to talk about the impact of the Islamic radicals. We have to speak openly and honestly about how the Islamic radicals have inculcated their slant on the whole doctrine of Islam, leading to somewhat of a world-wide distrust of all Mid-Easterners. Until both parties and the American people do that, we can expect to be involved in this never-ending war for years and years and years.
I think, let's compare the Islam radicals with some more familiar to us here on American soil. Oh, like David Koresh, a religious zealot in most opinions, but, still due American Constitutional privileges--until our government took issue with him. The United States involvement in Iraq is no more than the same type of ill-planned "Rambo-style" raid conducted by the ATF during the Clinton years. Remember when the ATF stormed the Branch Davidian home to serve a search warrant issued on the suspicion that the group was stockpiling automatic weapons? Remember when that raid failed and resulted 100+ deaths? People called that incident an American massacre. They claimed it was a conspiracy of the FBI, President Clinton, and Janet Reno that resulted in the worst, darkest, most despicable, and most grievous day in American history. (Sound familiar?)
The government's second reason for continuing the raid and furthering the damage was to rescue the children held there. Is it a necessary rescue to use 150+ law enforcement officers, locked and loaded, and tanks and chemical weapons, to storm a home all in the "best interests of the children?" Again, sound familiary?
Let us call a spade a spade, and move on with peaceful planting and sowing of all "peaceful" religions. We need an international effort (oh, say, like the UNITED NATIONS) to do the job! Let the United Nations be the international police, not the United States. Who knows, we may have another zealot here on our soil just lurking.....
Way to go Pat!
I'm surprised you said the things you said. You're not the average left-leaning secular progressive that we’re used to. :)
What most of the media has left out during the past several weeks is the surprising effect of the troop surge in Iraq. The percent decrease in violence against Iraqis and allied forces is remarkable, yet their has been VERY little coverage about it. Even FOX News, which is the most balanced network (it's not as right as the others are liberal) hasn't covered the success of the surge as much as it should.
Yes, the war is still going TERRIBLE, but the war in Iraq is becoming more successful than in the past few years. The United States can NOT afford to lose this war, because if we do, it'll mark the downfall of this country as the most dominant power in the world. And worse, Iraq and the surrounding region would become infested with terrorist activity, even more than now, because the Iraqi's will not be able to stand of up and defend themselves, and the breeding ground for terrorist activity will expand, causing an even bigger threat to the free world.
Bottom line: The United States of America can not afford to lose this war. This does not mean pulling out right away and declaring victory. If we don't win, we, and the free world, will severely regret it.
P.S. Pat, 'heard you got a boat, does that mean your be staying another three years? You just can't resist this place, can ya?! Good for you. You've made a lot of changes to this paper. And remember, change can be good...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home