Whether anyone likes it or not, this election comes down to one question. Sure, a variety of issues are at play, but the one overriding theme is Iraq.
Make no mistake. If elected, Democrats will pull out of Iraq. They may try and play word games, calling for "redeployment" or "changes in strategy," but the net effect will be to leave Iraq.
Admittedly, things have not gone well in Iraq. We are sobered by the deaths of American soldiers. But do not kid yourselves, if we leave now, things will get worse.
Context. It's a wonderful word, but few people understand what it means. In the case of Iraq, historical context helps give us perspective and greater understanding of the struggle we face. Our experience in Japan and Germany after WWII teach us that establishing successfull, self-sustaining democracies is neither a short nor easy process. Those were never countries considered "ripe" for democracy. Conversely, we know what happens when the US pulls out before the job is finished. One need look no further than Vietnam, Somalia, and Lebanon for a cautionary tale.
These were fights the US did not have to lose. We had the military might, but the American public and its leaders lacked the will. As a direct result of that weakness of will, millions of people died and innocent people in Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia continue to pay the price.
We mourn the civilian casualties in Iraq, but if we lose, if we give up now or anytime before Iraq can defend and maintain itself, numbers that can now be figured with five digits will jump to six and then seven. We wont be lamenting 30,000 deaths, we'll be outraged at the hundreds of thousands and then millions.
If we leave, various terrorist states and rogue nations will be emboldened. Rather than the voluntary disarmament we saw in Libya after Iraq, we will see more Irans and North Koreas.
We support the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq for the same reasons we outlined just over a year ago: Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror. This is not a war in the traditional sense, in which nation-states engage in set piece battles governed by the Geneva Convention. This is a war with a trans-national ideology--a war that does not recognize borders and boundaries. Worse still, it is a war in which our opponent places no value on human life. They will kill man, woman, and child and they will not negotiate. If we leave Iraq, it wont end our fight with the jihadists, it will simply force us to wage battle on a ground not of our choosing. We fear that ground will be US soil.
In our hierarchy of political priorities, we place the most value on a candidate's position on Iraq. When we fill out our absentee ballot thousands of miles from our home district in Washington, we will ask ourselves one question: does this candidate want to fight the jihadists in the homeland or in Iraq?
11 comments:
Yawn...
It would be so much easier to take this blog seriously if it weren't for your insufferable use of "we." You've made it clear that these posts are all written by one person, not any kind of collective. "When we fill out our absenteee ballot"? Gag. The rules of grammar don't conform to the size of one's ego.
Hey michelle, go stuff it. Not only is it an accepted form of writing, but the writer has already explained his use of the first person plural.
hey michelle, you might have the ego thing right, but you should check your grammar rulebook--in this case his usage fits his ego.
(pay particular attention to Morgan's comment)
http://onlifeandlybberty.blogspot.com/2006/08/friendly-reminder.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We
Your latest post started out pretty well but then disintegrated into a pile of warn out fear tactics that apparently still work on you. Are you really going to ask yourself while filling out your absentee ballot, "Ummm geeez, which of these two candidates wants to fight the jihadists in the homeland or in Iraq?" I'm glad you finished that post off with that dramatic, hard-hitting, steaming nugget of candidate selection advice.
Excerpt from:
Cletus Goes to War: Taking the Fight to the Jihadists
Cletus:
"Aww shux! I was justaboutta vote for that fella who wants to fight them derka derka dune coons here in the US of A! Pictured it in my ol' head as some sorta expo they was gonna do down at the county fair grounds. Thanks to that Internet thingy my pal Jake learned me something new 'bout them jihad folks and so Im a gonna vote Republican, mmm hmmm."
As Cletus talked to himself, his mother came in with a large manila envelope she had opened. The look on her face was a dual one- part anxious, part proud. Her son had just been admitted to the military, which until recently had been impossible because of his low IQ and poor test scores. She knew he could make it! But she just worried that the other boys would make fun of him if they ever found out he craps his pants whenever he gets really nervous. Ever since the threat of terrorism emerged, Cletus' mom had washed at least two pairs of shitty underpants each day. Cletus had learned to soak them in the sink, which made her job much easier.
Coming up in our next installment:
Cletus arrives in Iraq to fight the jihadists there, but in a moment of striking clarity and unusual introspection he begins to question whether his presence there is actually part of the problem.
I didn't mean to suggest that the first person plural is never appropriate. I've seen it used effectively in certain formats like newspaper editorials where the writer is supposedly voicing the opinion of a collective, and I've also seen it abused by self-important bloggers. In cases where it's a single specific author, Jake Lybbert, speaking for himself only, and alluding repeatedly to that individual self-- singular location in the UK, singular roots in Washington, singularly possessed ballot-- I don't think it works. The tone is condescending and contrived and I don't like it. All of us here in my head don't like it.
Agree with Michelle. It's annoying as hell. Hey that rhymed.
You're a poet and you didn't realize it. Or something like that.
Jake, I think you are right on with this post. See an Iraqi's point of view here
http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009169
Patient Observer-
Let's say that we all agree that success in Iraq is important. Based on what you have seen our military execute, do you think more time will solve the problem? Do we need the same "stay-the-course" plan, or do we need a change? Do we need more troops? Do we need more money? Do we need more allies? What do we need to make this work?
Patient, you have not seen our military might. You have not seen our military execute. Now that everyone's favorite SECDEF is gone, perhaps you will see our military unleashed. Similar to what happened in Vietnam, the politicians in Washington are making the decisions rather than the troops who are there. If the politicians say "Meet this objective." ...and then keep their hands off, more progress will be made more quickly.
A valiant effort pre-election Jake, but to no avail. Although I never have agreed with the agenda of the Democratic Party, I'm pretty happy they won. My hope is that now we'll have political gridlock and nothing will get done. Less laws make me happy.
Whoa... messed that one up... I meant raisin rather than Patient Observer
Post a Comment