Friday, January 28, 2005
Senator Kennedy, Shut Up!
Senator Kennedy is trying to make the argument that the US military presence is now part of the problem in Iraq. While I grant that our 3:00am housecalls, the kicking down of doors and the shackling of Sunni daughters don't endear us in Falluja, the merit of Senator Kennedy's argument escapes me. Does he honestly believe that things will settle down if we leave Iraq? If we leave, the insurgents will do exactly what they've been threatening to do in their leaflets: they'll slaughter anyone who has had the courage to stand up for Iraqi democracy and human rights. There are real people in Iraq, who truly believe that Iraq can become a democracy. If we leave, they die. And even if we simply say that we are leaving in six months, or in 2006 as he says, we will similarly seal their fate and the fate of this operation. The insurgents will know that their campaign to make the US sick of this war has worked. They will wait until we are gone, and then they will wreck all hell.
Bottom line: we'd all like to leave Iraq. I'd love to have our troops come home tomorrow and see no one else killed....I'd also love it if it rained ice cream tomorrow on my way to work. We must leave Iraq when the job is done, and not before; failure is not an option.
Quote of the Day: "At last Friday's prayers in Diwaniyah, a preacher from the Al-Fadeela party said voting 'is a national moral duty, and not doing it would waste the chance for coming generations to a better future.' It is in America's national security interests to have preachers in Iraq saying this, rather than what the government holy men pray for in Iran. Absent these elections, the prayers in Diwaniyah likely would resemble those in Iran." This is Daniel Henninger in Opinion Journal. If you want to ready the whole piece, go here.
Bottom line: we'd all like to leave Iraq. I'd love to have our troops come home tomorrow and see no one else killed....I'd also love it if it rained ice cream tomorrow on my way to work. We must leave Iraq when the job is done, and not before; failure is not an option.
Quote of the Day: "At last Friday's prayers in Diwaniyah, a preacher from the Al-Fadeela party said voting 'is a national moral duty, and not doing it would waste the chance for coming generations to a better future.' It is in America's national security interests to have preachers in Iraq saying this, rather than what the government holy men pray for in Iran. Absent these elections, the prayers in Diwaniyah likely would resemble those in Iran." This is Daniel Henninger in Opinion Journal. If you want to ready the whole piece, go here.
# posted by Ken @ 12:07 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I think we are clearly part of the problem.
Did you see Upyernoz' short piece on why a timetable really does make sense?
Briefly, setting a time table is a deterrent against some new insurgent recruitment as the insurgency will not be seen as fighting against an open ended occupation.
Furthermore, withdrawing according to a pre-established timetable will prevent the insurgency from declaring victory when we do in fact leave. Upyernoz pointed out that there was a historical precedence for this scenario in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel.
This is Upyernoz' blog
Did you see Upyernoz' short piece on why a timetable really does make sense?
Briefly, setting a time table is a deterrent against some new insurgent recruitment as the insurgency will not be seen as fighting against an open ended occupation.
Furthermore, withdrawing according to a pre-established timetable will prevent the insurgency from declaring victory when we do in fact leave. Upyernoz pointed out that there was a historical precedence for this scenario in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel.
This is Upyernoz' blog
Here's why this is wrong:
1) The insurgents want a timetable, they want anything that says were going to leave. Conceding ANY ground now would be a victory for them. It can't be allowed because now is the time when that sort of victory could give them momentum.
2) A victory for them now would be much more valuable than a 'victory' when we leave. That is the argument of someone who thinks we're going to leave before the job is done. We're going to leave when Iraq is democratic and stable. At that point there will hopefully be plenty of other Iraqi voices to help shape the debate over who gets the victory. It won't be the insurgents.
Post a Comment
1) The insurgents want a timetable, they want anything that says were going to leave. Conceding ANY ground now would be a victory for them. It can't be allowed because now is the time when that sort of victory could give them momentum.
2) A victory for them now would be much more valuable than a 'victory' when we leave. That is the argument of someone who thinks we're going to leave before the job is done. We're going to leave when Iraq is democratic and stable. At that point there will hopefully be plenty of other Iraqi voices to help shape the debate over who gets the victory. It won't be the insurgents.
<< Home
