Don't quit Iraq while plan is working

  • Follow Letters

Congressional Democrats and their supporters on the extreme left will stop at nothing to tear down President Bush.

Many refuse even to acknowledge the legitimacy of his election in 2000. Their transparent strategy has been to criticize everything and give credit for nothing, even when he makes decisions that they support. They hope to wound him with enough pinpricks to cause a significant hemorrhage.

Their strategy has worked, proving once again that going negative pays political dividends. But what have they done to our country? We are now in a world in which anything that hurts Bush helps the Democrats and al-Qaida. While patriotic Americans are trying to win a war, many in Congress have chosen to send aid and comfort to our enemies with their cynical vote denouncing the planned troop surge in Baghdad.

The inane comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam fool only the ignorant. The simple fact is that if we abandon Iraq, the country will descend into sectarian chaos, orchestrated by al-Qaida and Iran. We lose, the Iraqi people lose and the region becomes a tinderbox. Only al-Qaida would benefit. Emboldened and strengthened by our weakness, they would continue to prosecute the worldwide war they started.

We cannot avoid this conflict by refusing to defend ourselves. Radical Islam was in an offensive mode for more than 10 years before our invasion of Iraq. We now have them on defense. It would be foolhardy to relinquish that advantage. Bush was correct to invade Iraq. Despite misinformation from the left, the administration has a plan, and it is working.

My hope is that Bush will continue to ignore the polls, even if his support drops to single digits, and even if it costs Republicans the next election. If a Democratic president prematurely abandons Iraq in early 2009, the disaster sure to follow would relegate Democrats to spectator status for a generation while the world explodes.

James Wilde, Evans

Comments (30) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/24/07 - 06:03 am
0
0
Wilde draws hysterical

Wilde draws hysterical conclusions from flawed premises and disinformation. Here is the crux of his faulty argument: "The simple fact is that if we abandon Iraq, the country will descend into sectarian chaos, orchestrated by al-Qaida and Iran." First, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate Iraq has already descended into civil war AND MORE. Surging US troops into Baghdad to referee a civil war is not wise strategy or a workable tactic. Second, most Sunnis do not trust Al Qaeda. The secular Baathist insurgents in partiular do not hold truck with the religous zealotry of Wahhabism/Salafism behind Al Qaeda. Without the presence of a foreign occupier (the U.S.) the Baathists will rein in Al Qaeda (which is only 7% of the insurgency). They are only united because of their common enemy. Third, Iran is a neighbor of Iraq and has religious ties to Iraq's Arab Shiite population. Iran is not interested in chaos on its borders. Iran is interested in being the regional power. Iran is Shiite, but most Iranians are Persians. Iraq's Shiites are Arabs and there are differences between Iranian and Iraqi Shiites. Iraqi Shiites fought against Iran. THE danger is Bush will attack Iran

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 02/24/07 - 06:16 am
0
0
The obvious [to Americans]

The obvious [to Americans] conclusions drawn by Mr.Wilde are stated clearly enough that even Mr Cain can understand them. Only by repeating his misinformed view [incessantly] can Cain deny the truth of Mr.Wilde. His misinformation filtered through the hate filled left wing press is always inaccurate all of the time and his tiny tunnel vision view of carefully chosen incidents never take into consideration the big picture of the world war American and all western cultures are in. I used to think Mr.Cain's rantings were just more venomous spewings and continuous support of American enemies was just coincidental, but as he continues to press for American defeat at all levels his intent becomes more obvious. Mr.Cain, just as reason will never influence you, your half truths and total lies will not influence any informed person. Spew on, o hate filled one.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/24/07 - 06:52 am
0
0
Ms. Thomas, If there was any

Ms. Thomas, If there was any substance in your comments I would respond
to them, but they are vacuous. Your invective is psychological projection. I just want to make one more salient
comment and allow others to have their say. The United States does have
legitimate interests in the Middle East. Stability is one of them. The
Middle East is more than Iraq, and we should salvage what we can of
our reputation and influence in the region with a sane strategy.
Exactly who are our allies in Iraq other than the Kurds? It seems to me
we have alienated both Sunnis and Shiites. We alienated the Sunnis when
we deBaathified the army and the government. Shiites won the right to
govern, but minority rights must be respected. We have not even done a
good job of "picking a winner" between the Shiites and Sunnis. There is
a dilemma here. Saddam was a Sunni. Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia are Sunni, but Iranians are
Shiites. If neither Sunnis nor Shiites are our allies WHAT THE HELL ARE
WE DOING SENDING OUR TROOPS BETWEEN THEM? The stupidity of that is mind
boggling! We could withdraw and let them sort it out, but as long as
the U.S. occupies permanent bases and remains on Iraqi soil WE WILL REMAIN TARGETS.

toccoadawg
0
Points
toccoadawg 02/24/07 - 09:57 am
0
0
Mr. Cain, we will always be

Mr. Cain, we will always be targets of these fanatical idiots...Its better to fight them over there than over here. Diplomacy will never work with these people and if it did we should send you first.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 02/24/07 - 10:04 am
0
0
Mr. Cain: Here is a "salient

Mr. Cain: Here is a "salient comment", ask yourself the questions, What if I'm wrong? What will be the consequences? Am I infallible?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/24/07 - 10:06 am
0
0
Which "fanatical idiots",

Which "fanatical idiots", toccoadawg? Who do you mean? Do we have any allies other than the Kurds? If not, why do we claim that al-Maliki is an ally? He is a Shiite. It seems to me you don't know Sunni from Shiite - much less the various factions of each. Are we stupid for thinking we can mediate a civil war or establish a democracy or any other type of pro-western stable government in Iraq? Not by waging endless war in Iraq IMO.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/24/07 - 10:14 am
0
0
The Democrats idea to limit

The Democrats idea to limit this war
seems rational to me, mgroothand.
First, they will demand that all U.S. troops that are sent to Iraq are
fully trained and equipped before they are deployed into the Iraq
theater. Second, U.S. forces will not be used to referee a civil war
between Sunnis and Shiites. Third, U.S. forces may only be used to guarantee Iraq's current geographical boundaries, train Iraq forces,
and go after Al Qaeda in Iraq. The objective is to turn over a stable
Iraq to Iraqis AND LEAVE. Any U.S. plans for a permanent military
presence will throw a monkey wrench in this proposal. The U.S. must
renouce any intention of maintaining permanent bases in Iraq. The worst
mistake of all will be if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran.

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 02/24/07 - 10:18 am
0
0
Why argue with JRHC? He knows

Why argue with JRHC? He knows it all

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 02/24/07 - 10:53 am
0
0
Mr. Cain: For the last 60

Mr. Cain: For the last 60 plus years we have maintained permanent US bases on the soil of former enemies, Germany and Japan. For what reason and at what expense, I don't know. We also have a military presence in another 130+ countries so I seriously doubt we would ever leave Iraq without some semblance of US military remaining there. But, you have not answered my questions.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/24/07 - 11:23 am
0
0
Mgroothand, I'm answering

Mgroothand, I'm answering your questions. The United States invaded and occupies a predominantly Arab and overwhelmingly Muslim nation at the heart of the Arab and Muslism world WHICH NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATENED US. That strategic blunder by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush (he promised that war would be a "last resort") handed Al Qaeda and militant Muslims a cause celebre. Iraq became THE PLACE to fight and kill Americans. Remember that Al Qaeda did not operate in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Iraqi insurgents and foreign jihadists perfected their weapons and tactics in Iraq. They have been so successful that they now employ those tactics (IEDs and suicide bombers) that they perfected in Iraq in Afghanistan. If we leave Iraq that removes the motive that militants use to attract people to Iraq in order to repel the foreign invader (the U.S.). Saying that we are still in Germany and Japan is really a nonsequitur. Iraq is a bigger training ground for our enemies than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban. Bush has to blame somebody for his strategic failure. Cheney is busy today blaming Iran. The biggest danger is a wider war in the Middle East. The U.S. will lose that wider war

Ken
0
Points
Ken 02/24/07 - 11:58 am
0
0
Liberals don't want anything

Liberals don't want anything that will disrupt their self serving agendas. The left is a pathetic excuse for a political party, they have given the terrorists every reason to keep fighting. Be that as it may the US military and President Bush continue to keep these cretins (Terrorists) on the run and dying everyday. We hear the body count for the US casualties but the numbers of enemy dead are staggering and the infrastructure that supported them is broken. To leave this area, forget Iraq, would be a mistake. The middle East needs our presence if we are to prevail as a Nation. Living everyday as we did before the war placating these creeps is living in denial. They are there to kill us, destroy our culture and get us fighting amongst ourselves as they have so successfully done up to this point.

The Knave
24
Points
The Knave 02/24/07 - 12:01 pm
0
0
RE: James Wilde's statement

RE: James Wilde's statement -- "If a Democratic president prematurely abandons Iraq in early 2009..." Ending a war-of-choice after SIX YEARS would be "premature?!" A war that has turned Iraq from a natural enemy of Iran into a natural ally. What's not to like about a war that has devastated the population (i.e., millions of casualities and refugees) and infrastructure (e.g., less water, electricity and oil than before the crusade began)? The crusade has caused what thinking and rational people could see coming -- civil war, inter-sectarian religious war, intra-sectarian religious war, tribal war, etc. The comments found on this forum from the "Christian" crusaders are quite incredible. There seem to be no limits to their blood lust and desire to empty the Empire's treasury (currently proped up by debt financing provided by China and other "friends" of Uncle Sugar). --- "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.": Thich Nhat Hanh - Vietnamese monk, activist and writer.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 02/24/07 - 12:09 pm
0
0
Mr.Cain: Germany never

Mr.Cain: Germany never attacked us either, Japan did. Yet, we still have military bases in both countries. As to why that statement is nonsequitur, I'm at a loss. Germany was primarily Roman Catholic and I suspect Japan was Bhuddist. Must we exempt Muslim countries from warfare? The definition of nonsequitur is:a comment which is humorously absurd or has no relation to the comment it follows; a statement so foolish, or illogical that can not be responded to. Yet you did respond! I'm tired of responding to your inane comments all the while having to carry a dictionary. Next time I do I'll respond to you in Dutch, German, French or Maleis, your choice.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 02/24/07 - 12:37 pm
0
0
I guess that he is no more

I guess that he is no more of a know it all than PATRICIATHOMAS. Right,POP?

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 02/24/07 - 12:45 pm
0
0
Mr Cain: Your quote: "The

Mr Cain: Your quote: "The biggest danger is a wider war in the Middle East. The U.S. will lose that wider war"
Is that when we get to nuke 'em?

toccoadawg
0
Points
toccoadawg 02/24/07 - 01:05 pm
0
0
Mr. Cain, your pompous

Mr. Cain, your pompous pontification just goes to show that have no idea what you are talking about.....Both shia and sunni fanatics do not know what the word diplomacy means.....To them diplomacy means cutting your head off.....

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 02/24/07 - 02:29 pm
0
0
I've heard a lot of people

I've heard a lot of people moan about the Dems. and their "no plan" to handle this war. What I'd like to hear is one person on the other side tell me realistically what they think will happen if we stay? Do you really believe there will be a safe and free democracy in Iraq? Do you really believe we will ever be able to leave Iraq, and when we do it will be a stable place to live? The problem is we are all Monday morning quarterbacks. The sad truth of the matter is, no matter how cruel and corrupt Saddam Hussein was, he did have control of his country, and with all his bragging about non-existent WMD's he kept other countries and other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda out of Iraq. Now that he and his threats are gone Iraq is lost forever. The only way to save it is to trisect it into three countries, one Kurdish, one Shiite and one Sunni. With equal representatives from each controlling and dividing oil revenues equally among the three. Other than that, Iraq will always be a nation in chaos and war. Truth is, we don't understand the culture of the people in the Middle East, and no matter how hard we try, we can't change it. It's not our "right" to "Americanize" the rest of the world.

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 02/24/07 - 02:36 pm
0
0
The Knave, excellent post! I

The Knave, excellent post! I have another quote for ya, ""Naturally the common people don't want war... But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Herman Goering- Hitler’s Reichmarshall- said it during the Nuremberg trials in 1945-46. Sound familiar?

toccoadawg
0
Points
toccoadawg 02/24/07 - 03:50 pm
0
0
Hey gagirl40, I guess now we

Hey gagirl40, I guess now we should just bend over and them kill us all. You would love living under muslim law wouldn't you?

The Knave
24
Points
The Knave 02/24/07 - 05:02 pm
0
0
For toccoadawg: If "living

For toccoadawg: If "living under muslim law" is really your principal concern, then you should yearn for the good ole days of Saddam in Iraq. Pre-crusader invasion, the government of Iraq, albeit a dictatorship, was quite secular. Now that Saddam is taking his dirt nap, the religionists have forcefully asserted themselves, as in, slaughter those whose interpretation of the Koran and its prophet-writer's activities is different from their own. The post-Saddam enforcement of Muslim law is most clearly evident in the subjugation of one-half of Iraq's population -- the females. The place now looks much like our favorite friend in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia. The religious police are everywhere to make sure that Allah is not insulted by women not being covered from head to toe in black (including when the temperature is 110 degrees in the shade), by women being seen by a male while a guest in her home, by women driving or riding in the front seat of a car, etc. Pre-crusade, most of those in Muslim and Arab lands were quite content to kill each over religious disgreements. Thanks to The Decider's brilliant move, the target group has now been considerably expanded.

toccoadawg
0
Points
toccoadawg 02/24/07 - 05:10 pm
0
0
Hey "The knave",The point is

Hey "The knave",The point is these people would rather see us dead...The troops are in Iraq now and there they will stay whether we like it or not. The reason we are there is so we can draw the fanatics out in the open and kill them....Better there than over here I say......

The Knave
24
Points
The Knave 02/24/07 - 05:45 pm
0
0
For toccoadawg -- I should,

For toccoadawg -- I should, but I can't resist responding to "The reason we are there is so we can draw the fanatics out in the open and kill them." By initiating his crusade, Dear Leader has whipped up Muslims into a frenzy, particularly those who were not predisposed to dislike, let alone kill, Uncle Sugar's subjects. We have done it to ourselves and, ironically, paid a big price for the privilege. I lived in one of the most "hostile" of Muslim countries for two years, at a time when tensions with Israel were particularly strong. My appearance and speech are quite unmistakably "American." However, I treated all with respect and courtesy -- and I received the same in return. I made an effort to understand their culture, heritage, and history. In other words, I tried very hard not to be The Ugly American. Immediately following 9/11, there was considerable empathy and symapthy for Americans on the part of many Muslims and Arabs because of the sordid behavior of a tiny group of their brethern, mostly Saudis. That moment was America's chance to work on building relationships with them. Instead, The Decider decided that a better course was to put on his Ugly American costume

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 02/24/07 - 09:32 pm
0
0
It's easy to see who the

It's easy to see who the radical islamists would agree with today and every day. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the wishes for the outcome of the Iraq phase of this war is exactly the same for the radical islamists as it is for some of the people posting today. The wonderful techniques for handling this war that are recommended by the brilliant left were tried for eight years and America wound up with a flat spot in New York City. But hey, that was a few years ago. I guess all is forgiven. Those mean ole moslems have learned their lesson. Let's redeploy away as fast as we can. That will confuse them so much they'll never bother anyone again. They'll start fighting with themselves and never even notice we're gone. Then when they become a respectable and viable economic entity they'll be our friends. I'm sure I understand now.

3M3T1B
9
Points
3M3T1B 02/24/07 - 10:12 pm
0
0
Without looking, can anyone

Without looking, can anyone tell me how many US soldiers have died this month defending PThomas, mgroothand, toccoadawg, and the rest of these nutbags from radical islamists? I'll give you hint, 70, in 24 days. I think GW has topped the number from the NY attack. Way to go, W.

Miss Mary
0
Points
Miss Mary 02/24/07 - 11:13 pm
0
0
Nutbags. What a clear,

Nutbags. What a clear, concise, articulate argument you present there, Ozlbkilo. How proud you must be!

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 02/24/07 - 11:41 pm
0
0
oz.lb.kilo, the same number

oz.lb.kilo, the same number that died so you could suggest they all run away. The key word in "freedom of speach" is freedom. Something that is free only to those that don't earn it yet still recieve it. To some people, only a nut bag would think like that. Something else you have in common with American enemies. I suggest you think about this some time when you're not sampleing the product. Your postings will make more sense. [also, look who agrees with you] Miss Mary's sarcasm may have passed over your head.

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 02/25/07 - 12:09 am
0
0
Patriciathomas, you would get

Patriciathomas, you would get a lot further with your argument if you quit saying people who disagree with you are akin to America's enemies and accuse us of agreeing with radical Islamics. Some of you complain about name calling yet you try to slide the insults in there while trying to appear so brilliantly intellectual...doesn't work. Read my quote above..."denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."...sound familiar? As I said before...dead on the money!

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 02/25/07 - 12:38 am
0
0
gagirl140, is it a

gagirl140, is it a coincidence that although you claim to walk a different path your destination is the same as the radical islamist? Beat me with a stick or beat me with a golden cable, I'm still beat. My point is, and has been, that it's easy to see who American enemies would support if they read todays commentaries. I can understand dissent if it included an option other then total defeat now and in the future, but since it hasn't been presented that way all I notice is that there is a commonality between the point the run away left seeks and the point the radical islamists seek in reference to this country. Tuck tail and run just doesn't seem like much of a strategy to me. I do see what you mean about ..."dead on the money", but only if you really buy that strategy.

Miss Mary
0
Points
Miss Mary 02/25/07 - 12:55 am
0
0
Gagirl, you would get a lot

Gagirl, you would get a lot further with your argument if you would quit high-fiving yourself because you found a dopey quote by some loser Nazi. I'm not trying to be mean, dear, but the fact is that we on the Right think that Islamofascists are a threat, and many on the Left don't see this, so the Goering quote has little relevance. I don't understand how Leftists can't see these goons as a threat, given all they've done, especially the many terrorist attacks we sustained before the Iraq War (and I know these words will make you angry as many Leftists appear to feel that the Muslim world simply loved us before the Iraq War). Nevertheless, there's a difference of opinion here. I attended a party tonight where many of the guests were Iraq War vets, and some were shipping out again. I listened carefully to what they had to say. Their views were similar to PThomas's. They're sick of the division at home and feel it definitely emboldens the enemy. They're on the ground. They should know. I wish you on the Left would think about that the next time you tell us that this is some made-up threat or a threat that the Bush Admin. created all on its own.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/25/07 - 09:47 am
0
0
Islamofascist is a loaded

Islamofascist is a loaded term which is inaccurate but serves your purpose of demeaning the enemy - familiar yellow journalism tactics. Remember The Yellow Peril? As for your claim that the only alternatives are between total military victory and total defeat - hogwash! There is no military solution. Democrats demand that U.S. troops be fully trained and equipped before deployment. U.S. troops may be used to guarantee Iraq's current geographical borders, train Iraqi troops, and attack Al Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. troops may not be used to referee a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. THAT IS A PRACTICAL PLAN WITH OBTAINABLE OBJECTIVES. Bush's decision to surge U.S. troops in counter-insurgency operations in Baghdad and Anbar will fail. Unless he is stopped Bush will not only escalate the war in Iraq but expand it by attacking Iran. The U.S. must turn over control to Iraqis and leave Iraq. There will never be peace or stability as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq. The U.S. must renouce any intention of maintaining permanent bases in Iraq. We also must contribute heavily to an international fund to reconstruct Iraq as restitution for the illegal war we have waged against Iraqis.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs