Every once in awhile, I remember why I started blogging. It wasn't to make money, to get traffic, to get links. It was simply to get thoughts out of my head and on to "paper," something I learned in psych class. There are those times when the same thought keeps going through ones head about some subject. You know, the kind that has you talking to the radio, or yourself, in the car or in the shower. You just cannot believe what you read or heard, and just want to respond. Blogging is a forum to do that. It is cathartic.
I was content to leave a comment at Hooah Wife and Friends originally, but, just wasn't cutting it.
Anyhow, Silke (who just posted it, not blaming her or anything) links to a post by Excitable Andy, which goes thus
Saddam is gone. There is no longer any potential threat of weapons of mass destruction from a failed Iraqi state. The actual reasons for fighting this war in the first place have therefore evaporated.
Bush says it would be a defeat against Al-Qaeda. But Al-Qaeda was not the presence in Iraq before the war that it is now. And occupying a Muslim country indefinitely is not exactly a way to staunch jihadist recruits either.
Most grown-ups in Washington, even Obama, are arguing for a redeployment out of Iraq that would retain an active potential to take on Al-Qaeda if it were to establish an enclave in Iraq more dangerous than the base it has already established in Pakistan. And if Iraq’s Shi’ites and Sunni tribes take on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then we will have scored a huge victory by exposing the real battle that can only be fought by Muslims against other Muslims.
Now, I do not mind calling Andrew Sullivan "Excitable Andy," which seems to be a smear. But, since he is pretty much calling anyone who doesn't agree with cut and run a child, so be it. I won't take the higher road. There is no point in it.
The actual reasons for fighting the war were not simply to "find WMD." If E.A. would read the 2003 State of the Union, or that little law signed (rightly) by President Clinton, called the Iraq Liberation Act, he would know that. It is an old, tired argument.
Now, "redeployment," while not exactly new, is not tired, so, I have to ask, where exactly do the cut and runner's want to redeploy to? Right now, we are fighting Islamic jihadists on the ground of our choice, rather then the hostile and home court terrain of Afghanistan. Yes, there is still some fighting in Afghanistan, but not near what we are doing in Iraq. Shall we move said fight to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, maybe Yemen? Would they let us? Have any who suggest redeployment asked? Can we move all of them to Diego Garcia? Back to bases in Europe? Not much of a ready response when it takes 8 hours or more to get to the battlefield, eh?
Would Iraq let us back in after we abandoned them? Of course, abandoning them may end up with one or both of two things. Massive fighting leading to hundreds of thousands, or more, of deaths, and/or Al Qaeda and Iran running the country.
So, redeployment supporters, I ask you, will you take ownership if that happens? Will you take ownership if history books discuss the "killing fields of Iraq?" Will you do anything if that happens, or turn your backs, as you did when America was forced out of Vietnam, resulting in massive killings?
Will you take ownership if terrorist groups and Iran control Iraq, allowing them to dominate the Middle East, where, yes, a great bit of the worlds' oil resides? Will you take ownership when gas is $6, $7, $8 or higher a gallon, driving up the price on everything? Will you take ownership if Israel is destroyed, and Muslim terrorism runs rampant and unchecked around the world?
Will you?
Sure, not everything has gone peachy in Iraq, but, hey, it is a war, and Monday Morning QB'ing is easy. And, I will state uncatagorically, we made a big mistake in the initial part of the war, when we should have known that the Iraq army had no morale, and would surrender and/or amscray in droves, as they did during Desert Storm. That is not to question the courage of those who served in the Iraqi military, but that they had no reason to really fight, no discipline, no proper training, poor weapons upkeep. When the creme' de la creme', ie, the Republican Guard, is giving up to journalists, you know you should expect something like that to happen again after 12 years of sanctions.
But, that is in the past, what is done is done. What to we do now? Will you own what happens, redeployment folks? Will you take ownership of the diminishing of the America military, ala mid to late 70's? Will you take ownership of our allies around the world losing trust in us? They may not like us, may like to demean us, but, they have always known they can count on us. But not if we pull out prematurely.
Will you take ownership of bad countries and groups around the world knowing that we are a paper tiger? Will you take ownership when they know they can push us to do what they want, like they did to Spain, and then keep hitting us?
Will you?
More: Looks like John Hawkins (Right Wing News) had similar ideas.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog At MoreWhat.com, Mark My Words, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Pet's Garden Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The World According to Carl, Dumb Ox Daily News, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
