To stay or not to stay?
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. His first reason is:
“I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East.”
Really? That would be tragic if say Syria and Iran became less stable. Well, Lebanon became less stable – but that was a good thing right? I don’t know why we would care if a bunch of dictatorships became less stable. Isn't the ultimate goal to establish democratic societies in that region of the world?
And now his second reason:
“By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning.”
The insurgents hold no territory and must be in hiding and constantly on the run. In any direct battles, they always lose. The political process continues to move forward and the economy and infrastructure are slowing improving. It does not seem so clear to me that we are “not winning”.
posted by Fundy @ 6:12 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Like others against the war he seems to miss the point completely. Anyone who thought we would be in and out in a few months aren't even worth talking to. In order to do this right, we will need to have a presence over there for around 15 to 20 years. And that's just to get things stabilized. If we want a reasonable assurance that they won't start backsliding when we do leave it could take another 40 to 50 years. 2 and 1/2 years...pshaw...we're just getting started.
I cringe every time I hear a US soldier has been killed. I don't like war. I’m not sure of a sane person who does. But, contrary to what some think, sometimes war really is the best solution. Have we lost even as many people in Iraq and Afghanistan as we did on 9/11? That happened in less than a day and the enemy only lost a few people. At least the US soldiers have been able to give better than they get ( That of course doesn't seem to get mentioned ). The civilians of 9/11 had no such chance.
Later,
N
Post a Comment
<< Home