Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part VI

Posted By Elgin Hushbeck

Last time I discussed how, for many democrats, the war is already lost. For many it was a war that could never be won. Anti-War supporter and retired general William E. Odom who wrote “There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay,” went on to explain that “Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world’s political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world.” Perhaps, but the alternative is to leave the despotic rules in power, and the continue the conditions that have created the terror threat we now face.

There is a very simple but often overlooked principle in critical thinking, that anything can be defended if you only consider the evidence in favor, and anything can be rejected if you only consider the evidence against. As a general rule there are pros and cons to everything and both must be considered to make any sort of rational decision.

The anti-war activists pretty much ignore this principle, for they focus only on the problems in the Iraqi war as if these problems are in and of themselves an argument for leaving. Problem: Our soldiers are dying. Solution: Remove our soldiers. And that is pretty much as far as they go. They really do not think much beyond this. The idea that their calls for our withdrawn are playing right into their strategy and thereby encouraging the enemy to kill even more of our soldiers is never even given serious consideration.

So if we leave too early, what will happen? As mentioned above, even some anti-war activists agree that the current government would almost certainly fall. If this happens the country will descend into chaos and the number of Iraqis killed would climb (so much for their supposed concern about the Iraqis). In the chaos that followed, al Qaeda would certainly find someplace to make a base of support, and Iran and Syria would also certainly exploit the situation to expand their power and influence. It must be remember that only the first step of the terrorist plans is to “Expel the Americans from Iraq.” Then they plan to establish and Islamic rule “in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans” then “extend the jihad” and “clash with Israel.” Then after removing the “Little Satan” (Israel) they will go after the “Great Satan,” America.

As mentioned before, there are only two ways to end a war, 1) both sides must mutually agree to a truce, or 2) one side must defeat the other. As much as Democrats want to believe in negotiation, there is little chance that those who believe God has ordered them to spread Islam by blowing up those in their way will suddenly decide to ignore God negotiate a peace with the Democrats.

Again there are parallels to Vietnam. Not only were the North Vietnamese emboldened, following our defeat in Vietnam, but communist forces in general were emboldened. As a result, over the rest of the decade of the 1970s many other countries, not just in Southeast Asia, but throughout Africa and central America as well, came under the oppressive domination of communist rule, causing untold suffering of millions. Many have now have forgotten (or never learned) how bad things looked at the end of the 1970s, because of the revolutionary change brought about by Reagan and other leaders such as Margret Thatcher in England, and Pope John Paul II. ‘Morning in American’ was more than just a campaign slogan. In fact things changed so much under Reagan that Paul Johnson’s history of the twentieth century Modern Times which originally ended in 1980 with a very pessimistic outlook, had to be updated and now covers to 1990 to reflect the vast changes.

A defeat of the US in Iraq would not only embolden al Qaeda, it would embolden the forces of radical Islam worldwide. While leaving Iraq will be a defeat for the United State, it will be the loss of a country not the war. The war will go on. Many of the terrorist who went to Iraq to force our withdrawal, will then head to Afghanistan hoping to employ the same strategy there. As casualties begin to rise in Afghanistan will we begin to hear the same cries from the anti-war crowd? With terrorism embolden and with a base to train and plan, the chances of a major attack in the United States will greatly increase. However bad it is now, a loss in Iraq will only cause things to get worse, and probably much worse.

Should we withdrawal from Iraq too soon, it is certain that Iraq will fall into chaos, and become a base for further terrorist attack. So what will a future president do when the United States is attacked again, and the attack is traced back to those who took over Iraq after we left? Follow the example of the 1990s and send in a few cruise missiles? We have already seen how ineffective that strategy was. At that point our only real option will be Gulf War III. But as Gulf War II has been more difficult than Gulf War I, Gulf War III will be even more difficult. Thus those who want a withdrawal from Iraq are not pushing for peace, they are unintentionally pushing for an even more difficult and costly war in the future. It may come quickly, or it may take a few years, but it will come unless we really do finish the job this time.

Aug 1st, 2007

Comments are closed.