Posted on 07/17/2007 1:10:06 PM PDT by bnelson44
No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our “inevitable” defeat in Iraq, and that “the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.” He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.
General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years….
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.
I am more likely to be the drunk driving victim, murder victim, rape victim, etc. of an illegal alien before I am the victim of a terrorist based on where I live.
That makes both issues important.......but that’s just me.
“The 9/11 terrorists got into the country while the southern border was at it’s most porous, but they came in through the front door, international airports.”
I think we should close ALL doors before muttering platitudes.
Several of the 911 hijackers were here illegally and got fake papers through the locals’ amigo at the DMV. Illegal immigration has become an industry, and one that undermines us in many ways.
My bad. I apologize for not doing my homework.
The issue of what to do with American troops in Iraq is of far more pressing concern than that of the borders. The latter is a problem that has been 50+ years in the building, and will take 20 more years to solve.
McCain's analysis is correct, and the consequences of being wrong (by leaving Iraq) will come a lot sooner, and be worse for us and the rest of the world.
I just love how some people think they can win an argument by being condescending.
Tells me alot.
My condescension toward you is real, and based on the fact that you couldn't, even this once, leave illegal immigration out of the discussion. Not everything revolves about that one issue, no matter how hard you try to make them do so.
Your comment told me a lot, and I figured you needed your failings spelled out for you.
You are a name on a screen and I really don’t give a rat’s pahoot what you think about me.
Bugger off.
... said sheana, with unwitting irony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.