Consider the geopolitical ramifications of what would happen if Iraq descends into a bloodbath, shortly followed by Iranian control, should the United States withdraw. Consider that the true enemies - Iran-backed terrorists capitalizing on long-standing hatred between the formerly-oppressed Shiites and the formerly-Saddam backed Sunnis of Iraq - are those who follow the words of the Koran to the letter, to the point where all moderate Muslims are considered heretics worthy of extermination. Do you really think the Iraqis that truly want peace for future generations are interested in the words of those who kill them and their children via suicide bombs?
One last thing: consider that we are talking about a region of the world that has been mired within the reign of madmen for millenia. The lone exception is the nation of Israel, and they're under attack day by day. Consider that a vast majority of the Muslim populace are illiterate and uneducated, easy playthings for cunning warlords who despise Israel and Western Civilization (we should now; the liberal public education system has been doing a fine job indoctrinating lots of children these days). Do you have any idea of what could happen if a Western-backed, STABLE democracy - also an ally of the United States - was fully implemented into that hotbed of terrorism? The potential ramifications of a free (I use that term relatively, compared to most of the Middle East Muslim governments) society? We can see some effects now in Afghanistan. We're still at work in Iraq. Pulling out now, before the country is as stable as we can get it, would be disastrous for the Iraqis, for the moral spirit of America, and for our image as the world's lone superpower: what ally would dare trust us anymore, if we surrender after a less than 5,000 deaths in the field of battle? Don't get me wrong, but we've dealt with far more staggering losses in SINGLE battles within previous wars. As has been said, war is Hell, and we engaged in war. Now the only two acceptable paths are victory through a stable Iraq, or surrender without victory, complete with a disgraced United States and a weakened Iraq ripe for the plundering by Iran and other interested parties.
Were it me, I’d put a wall up by where the Kurds live and let those scumsuckers have at it.
On some level, I agree with you; the Kurds - with some help in part due their geographical closeness with democratic Turkey - have come a long way. If there were any sect I'd want to be allies with, it'd be them. But alas, the elected Iraqi Constitution and the elected government did not call for a separation into three states. Perhaps in the future, the Iraqis will do so of their own free will. But let's refocus on the now.
But why is it our business to keep them apart?
It was made our business when the elected Bush Administration decided declaring War on Iraq and Saddam Hussein - using intelligence that most of the world agreed was true - was in our best interests, along with ensuring the creation of a new, democratic government. The American people elected him again 2004, and we have that policy still in place.
Don't get me wrong, I wish we had done a few things differently. I wish that we had less PC ROE. I wish that our media weren't such traitorous scum that they ignore all good news and focus on the bad, painting a horrific picture that's not equal to reality. I wish the Democrats weren't power-hungry, treasonous fools. I wish the Republican Party as a whole had been more conservative and had more spine and more courage against the Dems and the MSM. But wishing is just wishing. By 2009, there will be a new Administration, and most likely new changes. Perhaps we will withdraw from Iraq before the job is done. Perhaps we might allow our troops to fight as they should fight in a war: with all they have. Heck, the Iraq War might be OVER by 2008. We just don't know. Bush still has less than 2 years to go.
Hasn’t helped us any, nor made much headway in settling their centuries-old disagreements...
Catholics and Protestants still carry some resentment against each other, but they've come a LONG way since the days of the Reformation of the Church, followed by a bloodletting of grand proportions between Catholics and Protestants in Medieval Europe. But Western society evolved differently than Middle Eastern society; the ideals of Christianity and the radical (back then) ideas of philosophers and idealists such as John Locke led to an advanced, more civil, more moral society; the remnants of that Europe that split away due to discontent with the local governments (such as the monarchy of Britain) eventually would form America, the greatest country on Earth.
Meanwhile, Middle Eastern society has been retarded for centuries still, due to powermad warlords and corrupt religious figures who care more about spreading by the sword to expand their power, the welfare and livlihood of those who follow them be damned. For if the Muslims had the same opportunity and the same education as most Americans, would you doubt that most of them would revolt in a heartbeat (Oh wait, some Iranians are revolting now...wonder why.)? They would dearly love - men and women (ESPECIALLY women) alike - the opportunities we have. But they have been indoctrinated to hate, hate, and hate some more from a young age. And that is a crime so heinous that it should be looked upon as one of the grossest of evils mankind can produce.
It’s just making us more enemies on BOTH sides.
To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. Short-term, yes, that is true...long-term? Can't say for sure. Depends on the success of a democratic Iraq. Depends on whether the people desire individual freedom enough that they are willing to go through the hardship required. It takes a long time to move past a lifetime of oppression; being under the thumb of a tyrant for most of your life will tend to remove any tendency to take any risk. Imagine it from the average Iraqi's view: you see an America, divided and arguing against itself about whether to help you and the rest of Iraq. You see terrorists attacking your fellow Iraqis daily. You see an international community almost ENTIRELY dedicated to seeing that you don't obtain freedom. And you have just come out from years of oppression, where you learned that it is easier to survive by complying with the rule of tyrants than it is to stand up for what you want. Couple in the "HATE AMERICA!" propaganda being pumped into your ears daily by al Jazeera, adding to your distrust of the Americans' capability to free you and your countrymen.
Sounds depressing?
That's what I imagine the mindset of the average Iraqi is like. Not a pretty sight, don't you agree?
Plus costing OUR kids’ lives and tons of taxpayer dollars we can ill afford.
Let me focus on the tax dollars portion first: a simple solution to this would be to lessen the amount of money being sent to welfare programs and to restructure the tax system. It's up to the Administration (be it Bush or the next one) to implement this, so this is where Americans let their voices be heard. Work to vote and elect conservatives who WILL lessen the socialist programs of our government. Then we can worry less about the tax dollars going to our war-fighting efforts. It would take effort. Lots of it. But so is anything worth fighting for. We held Bush's feet to the fire on Miers and other things. It's not unthinkable to think future Administrations can't have the same done to them (though electing someone who would pursue such measures anyway - a la Duncan Hunter - would be far less strenuous, you know?).
As for our soldiers...well, let me ask you one thing.
Why are they still volunteering?
Why?
Is it possible that they think this is a cause worth fighting for? That the people they see daily in Iraq want freedom, and are worth freedom? The tree of liberty must often be watered with the blood of tyrants to show how strong the very idea of freedom is...and she must often be fertilized with the blood of patriots who wish to see her grow strong.
Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the terrorists backed by Iran are the tyrants. Much of their blood has been shed already. New targets will arise in the new future, in my opinion.
Our men and women in the Armed Forces, who volunteered willingly, are the patriots. And I applaud their bravery and courage to fight for an ideal so many in this world are losing faith in: that freedom and liberty is something worth sharing and nurturing to all of the people in the world, and that sometimes sacrifices will be made to ensure that freedom does live on.
I’ll be looking for your answer.
Here's my final answer.
I'm just a 19-year old conservative man. I'm just a sophomore in college with a major in Mathematics. I'm still naive. I'm still lacking in the wisdom of my peers.
And I can't tell the future.
Only history will be the ultimate judge. Ultimately, history will tell whether or not the experiment that is a democratic Iraq succeeded or failed. Ultimately, history will determine whether the United States was made stronger or weaker, either by standing by Iraq till the end, or by abandoning her in her hour of need.
But I do know this.
On September 11, 2001, less than two dozen men hijacked airplanes with box cutters, killing 3,000 American lives. They vowed more attacks, with the support of those who would see that the United States fails: Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and all those who supported Saddam, al Qaeda, and the Taliban with weapons and other forms of aid.
We responded.
We are still responding.
We are fighting them over there, instead of over here.
Soldiers who volunteered to fight are dying, instead of citizens like those on Flight 93, who did not choose to be hijacked by those seeking to do harm to our country.
And to think our enemies will not capitalize on America's retreat - as advocated by the Democrat Party and Ron Paul - is shortsighted, considering the nature of our enemy, and the weapons they seek to use.
Does my answer satisfy you?
Paul advocates defunding an islamic terrorist government in Iraq as OrthodoxPresbyterian has posted above. He does not advocate the leftist global redistribution of American wealth proposed and implemented by Democrats and Republicans.
Good answer. Let me boil it down to brass tacks. We start a war, we finish it. Those advocating our withdrawal (defeat) and lying about or whitewashing our sucesses in theatre are no better than the scum sucking, traitorous John Kerrys, Jane Fondas and Walter Cronkites of the vietnam era.
That includes the Ron Paul/Michael Savage “conservatives”.
Our enemies can be democratically elected too you know. And much of the new Iraqi "democratic elected government" has close ties to Iran and some of it's leaders have engaged in terrorist acts against the West in the past themselves. You trust them?
Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
Excellent response.