 willhelm says: This editorial was a written response to Obama's editorial. It was rejected. continuing.. "Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism." "The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance." "To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endo... Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigade... "I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies." So willhelm, are you for permanent occupation? Does it matter how much we have to pay in cost, years, and lives when it will be lost as soon as we leave the region? And what is our goal there? The excuse of peacemaker just doesn't fly when there are so many other trouble spots in the world that the U.S. shows no interest in rushing to. I find your endless support of a war that we should never have been involved in quite deplorable. Let me rephrase that so it isn't so hostile. I find your support of this war confusing when you step back and look at the goals, the costs, and the reason we are there. Oortcloud, there is nothing there about permanent occupation. All McCain states is that, at most, we will keep a small coalition of troops at a small base or two in Iraq, with an agreement with the Iraqi government. Just like we have done in Japan, and Western Europe. Don't twist McCain's words. I didn't twist anything, I asked a simple question, I even reworded the question for clarity. You yourself point out a permanent presence there. More money, more spending, more risk, for someone else in a situation that we should never have been involved with in the first place. willhelm seems to be indicating what a great success Iraq is. My question is a success for what? What exactly have we accomplished over there? And was the cost worth it? Whether "we should never have been involved" in Iraq or not is over; its done; now we need to figure out how to leave the country. The best way is to leave it peacefull, with a constitution, a government, and a sound and able armed forces. And then, like we have done in past wars, we leave a base or two open for a small contingent of soldiers and there families (if any) to stay and keep an eye on things; as well as to act as a go-between between them and Washington. So we should just allow ourselves to wash our hands of Bush's incompetence or fraudulent usage of our military (whichever you choose to believe). Have you even considered that as soon as a serous America presence in the middle east is removed then anything we left behind is going to be undone, violently. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if they wait long enough for America to pull the majority of its forces out and then step up attacks and campaigns of terrorism it will likely go unanswered or break America's economy as it once again spends billions to bring troops back over. Why attack now if with a little patience they can have it all in a few months? Bush accomplished exactly w... That's just it--these terrorist want to strike now, while the "great evil" is in Iraq. However, once everything is in place, and we leave, things will become prosperous again in Iraq and these thugs won't be able to recruit boys and girls to do there dirty work by blowing themselves up in the streets. |
View the Top Clips from July 21, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
