All that being said, the blood of American soldiers must not go to waste. The sacrifices our people have made must bear the fruits of liberty for the Iraqi people.
Now, that we're there, we've got to finish it. If we walk away after all this... I don't even want to imagine the consequences.
The Paleoconservatives and older Bush hands like Baker and Scowcroft were right about a lot of their concerns with this enterprise. But now, I guess all of us have to pray real hard that this ends well.
I'm sorry to say that I supported the War uncritically, and with an ease that upon reflection I find unsettling and embarrassing. Especially in light of my vicarious -but stark and vivid- exposure to the horrors of War, via my parents, and their personal, all to real and very much non-vicarious experiences in Italy, during WW II. And, all this from a girl who has always considered it prudent, to hold any man aspiring to the presidency in suspicious regard, simply by dint of the fact that he seeks it. I like President Bush a lot, but blind loyalty is a very, very dangerous thing, and I won't let that happen again. I'm still not sure if going into Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do, but events in the last 2 months caused me to reconsider- critically.
The best friend a soldier has is the citizen, who with common sense, historical perspective critically assess the necessity of any War, any invasion, any ‘incursion', etc. Once the battle has been engaged, the soldier's best friend is a supportive, vigilantly engaged citizenry with eyes and ears at the ready to reconcile, or not, talk and facts.
A soldier cannot speak for him or herself, therefore it's the responsiblity of the citizenry to see to it that they are not considered sometime, somewhere in the middle of a list of objectives.
Hamza01, your desire that we now get things right over there, is not only on point, it's an imperative.
President Bush is much less likely to throw in the towel than Mr. Kerry, of that I'm nearly certain. And I do think President Bush is keen on doing things honorably, at least I hope he is. Still though, Yalta is an all too recent reminder that even following enormous expenditures of conviction, courage and bloodshed, the path of least resistance still has the power to ensnare.
The Law of Advantages and Rewards of the long view are not neceessarily suspended because of political consideration or because the going gets real rough and complicated. President GHW Bush had the perfect opportunity to rid the world of Hussein in ‘91. True, the coalition would have balked, but Mr. Bush had all he needed to make the case for removing him, punctuated boldly by Hussein's actual -versus grave and gathering- aggression against neighboring Kuwait.
As I understand it, he left the Kurds in the same position JFK left those brave men who charged the Bay of Pigs in '62 or '63, whatever year that was. JFK's abandonment of those men is an enormous indictment of his true lack of character, and an absolutely low-rent, unforgivable moment in his administration of the Presidency.
Now, it has to be said that the Elder Bush can't be accused of stooping to the same level of ‘expediency' as JFK, because JFK abandoned those men -point blank- in the middle of the intended objective of the mission, while GHWB abandoned the Kurds in the midst of tangential strategy to the mission. Perhaps that's what GW is alluding to when he uses the word strategery?
Anyway, I don't want to see that happen. The Kurds have the closest thing to a working Democracy in that area, and which was viable even in the midst of Hussein's reign of terror. We do owe them, in my opinion. And we may not owe the Iranians as much, but they are not a country so used to the yoke that they hold no promise. Iran holds enormous promise, if we can just aid where we can, and take the long view.