Some quick thoughts on the War on Terror-
Why do people want to leave Iraq? I already know what some of you are going to say:
"We didn't find WMDs!", "The terrorists hate us because we're over there!", "Bush lied, kids died!"
I think I'll answer these (so-called) arguments point by point.
1) NO WMDs-
So what? Why are people upset that we didn't find WMDs? Do you realize what kind of casualties Saddam Hussein would have inflicted on our troops if he did have them?
And the fact that Saddam "had" WMDs wasn't the selling point of the War. It was the fact that a) He already had a history of using chemical weapons on the Kurds and his neighbors, b) He had thrown out U.N. weapons inspectors, c) He would not allow unannounced fly-bys, and d) Both British and American intelligence believed that at some point after 2000, Saddam may have sought to require uranium from Niger.
2) Because we're there!-
I hate to break it to you, but the terrorists hate us because, you guessed it, they're terrorists.
The first significant act of terrorism against the United States was the Iranian hostage crisis. Now I know what you're thinking- they attacked our embassy because of the CIA and the Shah. I will admit that in that instance that could be the case.
But how do you explain Pan Am Flight 103, the 1993 WTC bombings, the 9/11 attacks, among other things?
They hate us because of the degeneracy Hollywood puts out, not because we're "over there".
--
What people don't realize is that failure in Iraq would humiliate the United States and embolden our enemies. Furthermore, failure in Iraq would mean the failure of the Maliki government, and the creation of power vacuum in the Middle East.
Now one or two things will happen with this vacuum- a) It will become a hotbed for terrorists to use as a base of operations, and/or b) Turkey will invade the north to prevent the Kurds from trying to establish their own nation. Syria and Iran will invade just to gain territory.
But one thing is certain-
Failure in Iraq is not an option.
Are we just going to continuously throw the troops under the bus over there? How many American families are we going to destroy in the hopes of saving face?
I believe the US is already pretty humiliated. Just take a look at our president. What's one more humiliation on top of what we are already suffering? It seems to me our enemies are already pretty bold, because they are winning. New report out today that says an attack on America is pretty much iminent at this point. I'd say that's pretty bold.
We're not suffering a humiliation. People like you have insulted our President's intelligence, told us that we're losing, and that somehow we're "throwing troops under a bus".
Guess what?
We're not losing. We're actually winning. The surge is working. The Iraqis are turning against al-Qaeda.
The reason we haven't had an attack since 9/11 is because Bush has taken the battle to their territory, and kept it out of our's.
--------------------------
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan
Its just like the U.S. to say that we are the model democracy and therefore other's have to follow suit and create a democracy similar to ours.
The last time I checked 50 percent was a failing grade; only have of the proposals of the Bush administration were met in Iraq.
I agree that terrorists are going to not like us regardless, but animosity towards the United States is growing past terrorists now.
Why didn't we leave once we captured Saddam Hussein? I tell you why, we are not in Iraq to help stop "terrorism," we are there for Bush's own gains...for crude oil.
Now we are currently between a rock and a hard place; If we leave I Iraq there is a possibility to being attacked once again and If we stay, more soliders will continue to die for a war that has no purpose. If we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place we would not be in this situation.
What have we gained?
"People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." -Rebecca West
First of all, oil had nothing to do with it.
Second, we didn't leave because we can't just go into foreign countries, overthrow their dictators, and just leave.
We have to act responsibly and make sure that these people have a government that establishes a rule of law and order. Otherwise, the country just becomes a hotbed for terrorists.
Or another dictator rises who will automatically dislike the U.S. out of fear of assassination (just look at Fidel Castro)
--------------------------
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan
Oil had everything to do with it. The Bush administration attacked Iraq because gaining oil from Iraq would make it less dependent on autocratic and authoritarian regimes. Bush thought that gaining oil from Iraq and forming a democracy there would scare the autocratic and authoritarian regimes and force them to change. Why hasn't the US attacked Saudi Arabia on its human rights abuses? Saudi Arabia has not verbally attacked the US and it has oil. If Saddam Hussein never threatened the US, he would still be in power.
Also, Iraq is already a hot bed for terrorists. Look at its borders and the sectarian violence tearing the country apart. I think we need to stay in Iraq but for very different reasons. Another dictator will not rise in Iraq, Iraq is an ethnocracy and the Shia populace would not let it happen.
It is not the US's responsibility to convince other countries to be democratic. In spite of the Democratic Peace Theory, countries can live in harmony without having a democracy. A democracy isn't a solution to every countries problems.
If we aren't in Iraq for crude oil, then why are we there? To prevent potential threats from commiting terrorist acts?
"People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." -Rebecca West
First response:
Failure in Iraq is definitely not an option. However, keep in mind that if the reconstruction process does not begin shortly, failure in Iraq will be inevitable. The state department and the pentagon JUST started to work together on the reconstruction process by combining funds. Not only has the reconstruction process gone no where, but a significant amount of money was wasted when the two agencies worked separately.
Second response:
The surge in Iraq is not working. Moqtada al-Sadr has simply moved his troops to southern Iraq. Our troops are now combating the Sunni insurgents. Sadr sees the Sunni insurgency as a threat and he is getting what he wants. More importantly, if the surge was working, why is the United Iraqi aAliance experiencing a stalemate in parliament? Why has a non-elusive constitution not been formed? The US had an opportunity to stabilize Iraq and I'm afraid to say that that opportunity is almost gone.
It's refreshing to have someone with real arguments!
1) Good point, we need to get started.
2) I disagree. The troop surge IS working, which is why we're regaining territory. But the stalemate in the Iraqi parliament wouldn't necessarily be the cause of operations on the ground. Most likely it is the Iraqis who are just now learning how the game in politics works. Iraqis are still adjusting to the fact that they now have the right to vote and that they can speak out. We need to give them more time, and wait until September when General Patraeus issues his report on the troop surge.
-------------------------
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan
Here's the second portion of my comment:
1. Iraq and the WOT
Iraq is not part of the war on terror. An insurgency and a terrorist organization are two separate things. I am aware that Al-Qaeda has a presence in Iraq. However, keep in mind that the insurgency is what the US must focus on fighting. The Sunnis in Anbar province are already combating Al-Qaeda and the vast majority of persons part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq are foreign milita men.
2. Why terrorists hate us
Terrorists hate us not because of the degenercy that Hollywood puts out. I'm afraid to say it is much bigger than that. The terrorists within the Muslim world hate us because Islamic nations that follow sharia law do not hold much economic or political clout. DId you know Israel's economy is fairing better than all the gulf countries combined? Terrorists hate us because they are humiliated. Pride is a big part of every culture and right now the terrorists have simply lost their dignity. They live within countries that are either poor, or ones that suffer from the oil curse. Also, the terrorists who grow up in Europe are angry because European governments have failed to assimilate the minority populace into mainstream society.
1. I think Iraq is very much a part of the War on Terror. Look at what country is sandwiched in between Iraq and Afghanistan: Iran. We're trying to bring a force of moderation to the region that it has never seen before, and by establishing Muslim democracies in the heart of the Middle East, people there will see something that is hopefully attractive to them and that will make them push their governments towards democracy. Plus, if these democracies work, I think Israel will finally have some more allies in the Middle East.
2. I'll agree that jealousy is also part of the reason they hate us, but I do think that the westernization of the Middle East is part of the reason the terrorists hate us.
They don't want their daughters having casual sex and getting abortions.
-------------------------
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan
Regaining territory means nothing. If the Bush administration has been unable to start the reconstruction process- it shows that the Sunni insurgency has prevented it from starting. Also, if you read my latest blog post, US troops leave "conquered" territory has soon as it is stable. This means that the Shia milita men and Sunni insurgents return to the territory. There aren't enough troops to stay in most areas; this is one of many reasons why the surge is not working.
Shia politicians have been involved in politics for a very long time. Just because they have never had the power does not mean they don't know what to do with it. There is a stalemate in parliament because the Bush administration hasn't been helping the Iraqi government politically. I didn't link it directly to the military aspects of the surge.
But the Bush administration shouldn't meddle with the Iraqi parliament.
They need to learn how to resolve these conflicts on their own:
a) Because if Bush tried to meddle with these conflicts, it would send a message that the Iraqi government is just a puppet government of the United States. They need to establish their sovereignty
b) and because the ability to compromise and resolve conflicts is what will end the sectarian violence that is plaguing the country.
--------------------------
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan
1. Do you honestly think that the Iraqi government isn't a puppet for the US right now? If we don't help this stalemate, it will take longer for us to withdraw from Iraq. We need to stay but if we don't help Iraq politically we will be there forever. Are you ok with that?
2. How will the Iraqi government compromise and resolve conflicts on its own?
I agree that the westernization of the Middle East is part of the reason why they hate us, but the fall of the Islamic empire is THE reason why they hate us. Just because Iraq is sandwiched between Iran and Afghanistan does not mean it is part of the WOT. As I said before, there is a difference between a terrorist organization and an insurgency. Al-Qaeda has a very small presence in Iraq and is compromised of foreign milita men. If we left Iraq, then it would be a part of the WOT. For now, it is not. Iraq is not a democracy and it will never be one. It will be an ethnocracy. Read Ahmed S. Hashim's tome.