I do not find this convincing. By that standard, Clinton just as good a job as Bush has, and he did it with lawyers (a clear handicap). But a year after Clinton was 9/11. I also do not think it reflects a clear understanding of enemy doctrine. Their purpose was served by the events that event set in motion, and enhanced by the empty hole in the ground where the towers once stood. They have proven their thesis (that the West is a weak and hollow shell of its former self, ripe for their conquest); it was up to us to disprove it, and we failed. They brought down the towers and we could not rebuild them. They are on the ascent and we are on the descent. Their post-9/11 rate of progress is more satisfactory to them than the pre-9/11 rate, as nations all over the world cower to them and give in to their most irrational demands, allowing them to establish colonies and spread their doctrine in every Western nation.
I’m referring to international terrorism.
I really don't see that the manner by which an American dies at the hands of a hostile foreigner really makes a difference to the people who are dying.
No, the original mission didn’t change. We are fulfilling the objectives laid out in the congressional authorization, which states ‘to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime’
Issues of the legality of the authorization aside (a Declaration of War is called for in the Constitution in such a case), we had already fulfilled that mission as of 2005. The Iraqi regime was toppled, and we have (far) more than promote the emergence of a democratic replacement. The question is whether 'promote' means any activity at any expense; the method chosen was the single most expensive method imaginable. We had to borrow the money to pay for it from the Chinese too, which funds their own aggressive military growth... which is primarily aimed at us.
At this point we can quite fairly claim a win and pack it up, and if the people of Iraq and Afghanistan want to live in a decent country it is on their own shoulders to make it so. What the authorization definitely does not call for is the indefinite adoption of whole nations and their unending dependency on the tapped-out American taxpayer.
To put the current effort in perspective, in 2/3 the duration of this current war, the US went from being armed for peacetime to having conquered all of North Africa, half of Europe, the entire South Pacific, and Japan, gaining the unconditional surrender of our enemies - all the while supplying Russian, UK, and various other independent forces.
In contrast, this war is being run like a government program... it eats up more money every year and provides fewer benefits. The fight is being run as if the priority is to keep the gravy flowing to government contractors rather than finding and defeating the enemy. Honestly, a Congressman should be shot for treason if he attempts to earmark defense dollars, putting the favor of a supporter over the effectiveness of our armed forces. But the legislature keeps passing 'em and the President keeps signing 'em and the next generation keeps asking who is expected to pay those bills.
Enough with the play-nice globocop role. Our defense posture should be such that we guarantee complete destruction to anyone who screws with us, and to follow through if necessary, while selling arms to any friendly nation willing to do the job of protecting their own sorry butts. And if they are not... it's their problem. As we have seen since 2001, few of those other countries are really going to stick with us when we get attacked, and their demands are too expensive to support them as vassals.
And if they fail after we are gone, Islamists will have won a tremendous victory. This will mark, because of what ensues in the following 50 years, as the single worst outcome in U.S. history.
A pull-out will fix social security? The legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom? The only ones questioning the legality are the far left and Ron Paul supporters (I’ll note that Ron Paul supporters don’t even recognize the War Power’s Act because the claim it to be uncontitutional.) This act is recognized by everyone else, so the unconstitutional accusation is ficticious. Ron Paul’s isolationist stand is impractical. Abandoning Iraq would threaten the security of the U.S. and thus not fulfill the objectives of the authorization (which is 100% constitutional, despite what the Ron Paul followers claim.) Also, prentending we are waging a war on all of Islam is a bin-laden talking point, and of course ficticious.