Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part VII

Posted By Elgin Hushbeck

Last time I argued that leaving before the job is done, is not really anti-war, or a push for peace, but really an argument for a more difficult and costly Gulf War III at sometime in the future.   Thus, while we are bringing democracy to Iraq, it is not primarily for the Iraqi that we are fighting. Our soldiers are fighting, and dying for the interest of America. They realize that letting the enemy win is never a good idea.  As I believe Patton once said it never a good idea to have soldier die for the same piece of ground twice. But a defeat in Iraq would be total disaster, the cost of which would be far higher than anything we have yet seen in this war.

A lost would embolden the terrorist not only in Iraq, but through the world.  Not only organized groups such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah, but every little splinter group and terrorist want-a-be would be embolden.  Anti-war activists claim that Iraq is a recruiting tool for terrorism, even if true, it would be insignificant next to the number of terrorist created by a defeat of the U.S., just as the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam was a boon to communist forces around the world.

If this was not bad enough, a defeat in Iraq would almost guarantee that Iran would get nuclear weapons.  It has become clear that the rest of the world is not going to do anything, and it is highly unlikely that a weakened U.S., stinging from a defeat in Iraq, could do anything that would force Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons, short of the use of military force.  Yet, having just been pushed out of Iraq, military force would itself be extremely unlikely.  Nor is there really much doubt that if Iran had nuclear weapons, they would use them. They have made their intentions to wipe out Israel clear, nor is it likely they would stop there.

The costs of failure in Iraq, are really too high to even risk.  We must win, there really is no other option. If, despite the evidence now,  the current surge does not work, the question should then be, what will work?  Again, unless we want all learn to read Arabic and live under Sharia Law, we will have to fight and defeat the forces of terror some place. If it is not Iraq, then where will it be? The longer we put it off, the more likely it is that terrorist will gain access to WMD’s and there is no doubt they will use them. So how long will we put this off? 

Of course if the consequences of leaving Iraq are really so dire, why don’t the anti-war forces see them?  There are many reasons. Some are just anti-war on principle.  As they seen the world, war is never the option.  For others, it is as I described in a earlier post, that they do not see a war on terror, the simply see criminal acts, and what is needed is to catch and punish the criminals.  However for many, if not for most, they are so blinded by their hatred for Bush they literally cannot see past it. 

For them the war was not a response to acts of terrorism, it was for oil (though if we simply wanted the oil we could have just bought it from Saddam, like we are buying if from Iraq now).   In fact, for many 9/11 was planned by Bush as a justification for the war.  The Patriot Act was not to make it easier to stop terrorism, it was so Bush could crack down on political opponents. And of course their favorite, even thought virtually everyone, including many critics of the war in Iraq, World leaders, intelligence agencies around the world, and leading democrats believed and said repeatedly that Saddam had WMD’s, somehow Bush, who is supposed to be so dumb, could see and understand what no one else seemed to be able to figure out, that Saddam didn’t have WMDs.  So while everyone else was mistaken about Saddam’s WMD’s, Bush lied about them.

In the midst of a political campaign, if the war on terror was not such a serious issue, such laxity with the truth could perhaps be forgiven as simply political rhetoric.  The problem is that the campaign is long over yet charges such as “Bush lied” continues to the point that it seems the democrats have so thoroughly confused their political rhetoric with reality that they now really believe it.  They are so focused on defeating Bush, that the terrorist and the threat they pose has really faded into the background to the point that it is not even taken seriously. Despite all the terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11, they see the war on terror as a creation of Bush.

For these anti-war activists, getting our troops out of Iraq is important for it would be a failure for Bush.  That it would also be a major victory of the terrorist is not even considered; defeating Bush is the only thing that matters. This is why Harry Reid could declare the surge a failure before it was even fully in place. The actually events in Iraq are not what is important, defeating Bush is what is important.  This is the reason that the media which for the most part shares the democrats hatred of Bush only reports the negative news out of Iraq; why they report the bombing, but not the schools, the failures but not the success.  When the news is that the surge is working, the story suddenly changes to the “political failures.” Anything to portray Iraq in the worst light possible.

Thus the Democratic policies are driven more by what will hurt Bush. It is not that they want the country to suffer, it just that they hate and despise Bush so much that they believe anything that hurts Bush will be good for the country. In short, they are being irrational when it comes to the war on Terror, and it would be very dangerous to let such irrationality to govern our country.

Aug 20th, 2007

Comments are closed.