I am a libertarian leaning Republican, a former Marine, a current Christian, and a supporter of both the military assault on Iraq, and the current war
on terror. I believe it is time, however, to withdraw from Iraq, and I list below both the reasons why and how we can accomplish this.
I wanted to start, however, by pointing out one very important thing. I believe that the war in Iraq has been won. The justifications for this war I
was both given, and later came to on my own, has resulted in the accomplishment of the goals that I believe were set for us. There are a limited
number of responsibilities that we now have in that country, most of which can be attained with the removal of our military.
What were these goals and victories I speak of? I know that there are many on this site who will tell me of the atrocities wreaked by the both awesome
and terrible machine that is war. I know that many will try and say that we are past this point of barbarism, that peace and the extended hand of
brotherhood are all that is needed in this modern world. I know that many of you see the wounded and dead of this war, and cannot see how this has
resulted in the safety of any americans. I will answer that below...
And to the other side; I know that many may see the idea of leaving this conflict as some sort of "loss of face". Afraid that we may be seen as
cowards, or worse, without the stomach to see through the results of our saber rattling. I know that many republicans fear, and should, that the
democrats will seize upon this as nothing they have ever before. They will scream that they were right, that we never should have gone, that we look,
and are weaker. I sadly understand that our political system is both corrupt and destructive, and that many will do anything to gain whatever they
can. That many socialistic programs will come into being if the Dems are able to turn this into a landslide democratic victory in all the houses. So I
say to you, that if you read what I say below, you will agree that we have as much right to claim victory as they do defeat...
So why and how;
The united states military has engaged three types of enemy thus far. Two types of insurgents;
Definitions of insurgent on the Web:
(joint) Member of a political party who rebels against established leadership. (JP 1-02)
a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
in opposition to a civil authority or government
An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. ...
(courtesy of the
This term applies to both the early fighting done by the remnants of the Iraqi Army, and the current fighting done by Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada
al-Sadr and his militia.
Defeating the earlier insurgency was a goal of the U.S. military. Through both diplomacy, and a series of events that included the death of Saddam,
the earlier Insurgency gave up, were defeated, or made compromises;
link to source
The Associated Press is reporting today that Izzet Al-Douri, Saddam’s former Vice-President and the currently at-large figurehead of the
Ba’athist renegades, has called for a general ceasefire. Allegedly, Al-Douri’s couriers carried his message to the various midlevel commanders of
the insurgency only after Saddam was found guilty and sentenced to death.
If this story is true, then it bolsters the claims made recently on Talisman Gate that the Sunni insurgency is experiencing fatigue, and that the
guilty verdict issued yesterday knocked the wind out of the insurgents’ resolve to fight for re-instating Saddam. It is also seems to confirm the
notion that the most recent spike in violence over the last two months was timed to coincide with America’s midterm elections.
As for the Second group of insurgents, that is an internal issue. As we are considered targets, it almost seems as though we would be better served to
leave those streets. Our support of the Iraqi government should be to prevent the influence of other countries on their democratic process. Sadr and
his army, if they are not attacking civilians, are only engaging in the type of civil war that we did in this country. Preventing the Iranians from
sending in weapons should, however, be something we continue to stop, but more on that in a second.
The last enemy that has been engaged in Iraq are terrorist groups. We have obtained victory on this in three ways; Terrorists were unable to promote
follow-up attacks on the U.S and other countries due to the resources lost fighting the U.S. troops on the battlefield.
link to source
Also, resources and information gained from being "on the ground" so to speak has prevented further attacks on both the U.S. and other NATO
countries, as well as helped the nations dissect cells of terrorists.
Lastly, the terrorists were forced from the post of government in Afghanistan, the result of which has been gains that any humanitarian should boast
about but won't.
The point being, we have engaged our enemy, and defeated them in many ways. But we are at the point, an invisible line if you will, where our
continued involvement will begin to cause more harm that it is helping. We have made our gains, and our victories, even with the worst war plan since
vietnam. I know that there as been a lot of damage, collateral, and to our reputation, but we did do a lot to help this country. I believe this to be
true, and Lord knows that we helped the Kurdish peoples of Iraq, whom are now thriving.
So how do we leave? Well, I say, pack up the bases, surround every american with a LOT of fire-power, and back away, carrying everything, and I mean
everything, that the military brought with it back out. We turn over all of our bases to their military, and step back, running air cover over the
countries borders in order to allow it time to get through it's inevitable civil war. We then need to adopt a policy of attacking government heads
and military heads of rogue nations. Cruise missiles and assassination teams would have far more of a good impact than destroying an entire nations
infrastructure. Trust me, you kill enough heads, some guy in line will negotiate...
So, any thoughts?
[edit on 27-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]
[edit on 27-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]