Hillary and Bush wrong on Iraq!
Hillary Clinton and President Bush both want our military to stay in Iraq long term. Yet experts tell us our long term military presence drives the recruitment of terrorism . Professor Pape has run the longest study on terrorism and has testified before Congress about this issue.
Why not recognize the separate areas of Iraq and pull back U.S. troops? We could keep the troops in an off-shore position to help or use strategic air strikes if needed. We could then bring in an international Muslim force to work in Iraq instead of non-Muslims.
America could then focus on eliminating Middle East oil dependency and lower the tension of terrorism against America. I do not see how our military presence in the area helps us long term.
Wikipedia-Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.Robert Pape’s (an expert on terrorism) wrote in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) controverts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns), he concludes that there is “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions… . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (p. 4). “The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism,” he argues; it is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (pp. 79-80).
John – as 20+-year military veteran, I too, would like to see our troops withdrawn. However, those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. I refer to the withdrawal of American troops from Southeast Asia. Is it moral to risk the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis by withdrawing? That history lesson I mentioned would dictate an answer of NO!
It’s a bad situation, but leaving is simply not the answer. All that accomplishes is to embolden the insurgents and make the U.S. appear as if we haven’t got the National will to carry on.
As disappointed as I am in the president, his strategy of a surge is, in my view, the correct one. In fact, I think MORE rather than less troops is the answer. I’m not talking about a long-term presence, but we need to stay until the job is finished; irrespective of how long that might be.
Let’s not return to the days when the U.S. was viewed as a laughing stock for shirking our responsibiities in Viet Nam. Our aim must be victory in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other God forsaken place that remotely jeopardizes OUR National Security.
The U.S. Armed Forces are the finest the world has ever known. Let’s give them the chance to do their jobs and win this thing once and for all.
Sgtmac25
Thank you for your service to our Country. I have a question how can we when the people do not want us their? I do think we need to finish the job. The issue is how we do it and I think we need to be politically savvy.
[...] Hillary and Bush wrong on Iraq! [...]
In Iraq, we have a complex religious problem as well as a political issue.
How do you make peace between two religious groups that have been fighting each other for centuries?
That said, most do want peace. It isn’t the majority that want peace that is the problem but the few that don’t and the governments backing those few with funds, weapons and even manpower.
Having a doubling of troops won’t help if they are restricted from house to house searches to find the weapons cashes. The Iraq government has to develop a trust with the people where Iraqi police and military do what needs to be done and suspicious activity is not only reported but, a complete search of the suspect home or business is conducted by the Iraqi’s.
A “troop surge” to stop inflows of weapons, manpower and funds, can help. But, the areas where the actual bombings are occurring have to be ended by the Iraqi’s.
The strategy that left borders open can be corrected with more troops but little can be done by the U.S. and coalition forces to end the religious war nor the al-Qaeda attacks until entire neighborhoods can be searched.
That isn’t done by the U.S. because we didn’t want to be viewed as “heavy handed” in a new “democracy” where “rights” were supposed to be upheld and a new government respected.
Jan
We are in a catch 22!
How much middle east turmoil is due to religious tensions vs. the heavy handed tactics of the superpowers and puppet regimes?
John want to take a guess when this happened?
Islamic assassins murder in secret and in public an entire range of both Western and Moslem leaders. Terrorist attacks on Western outposts are a continuous threat. Suicide attacks are common. Potential recruits are promised a life filled with virgins and wine after they die. Bases of these fanatical killers were in Iran and Syria.
“Why not recognize the separate areas of Iraq and pull back U.S. troops?”
Here’s a wild stab at the answer: because we have no right to recognize separate regimes.
David
I agree. We think it’s our right and duty to mix and meddle
(translation: divide and conquer) with the Middle East.
the PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
has EBE (exceeded budgetary expectations)
has DPC (Destroyed political capital)
is KOE (Killing our economy)
CT (creating terror)
CE (creating enemies)
RICW (re-igniting the cold war)
DONS (destroying our national sovereignty)
TAOF (taking away our freedom)
and MULS (making us less secure)
Mike
The key is how they get most of them to join. The only point I am making is CIA, military intelligence and experts claim that U.S troops on their HOLY LAND is major recruitment tool!
The issue is how we deal with the problem in my view.
A few points if you please.
1. Jan Paul asks how to ease religious tensions. I say it CAN and has been done. Look at Northern Ireland. Dialog got the Protestants and Catholis to come to an agreement albeit a tenuous one.
2. John Konop says how can we when they don’t want us there? I say that’s not entirely true. Ask the women who now have some basic human rights or the kids going to school because of our efforts. Let’s not forget about the liberation of millions. Can we do better? Absolutley. Have we done well? YOU BET!
3. I would remind all the nay sayers that it took THIRTEEN YEARS to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Nobody can deny the Iraqi government is ahead of that pace.
4. Finally – it’s a very unpopular war, and given hindsight, we probably shouldn’t have gone in. However, having sadi that, now that we’re there, let’s do the job and end the madness…even it takes longer than most of us would like.
[...] Hillary and Bush wrong on Iraq! [...]
Mac
you want to be the policemen of the world!
John – What’s the alternative? Pull the troops and let the Iranians walk in? That’s precisely what we don’t want to do. If we do that, you’ll have the big three-headed monster (I refer to Syria) against Israel, our staunchest ally in the region. That’s simply not acceptable. It’s bad enough Iran will be nuclear capable before we know it. We all know they’re already supporting the insugents. If we leave now, before the job is done, we risk a far bigger battle in short order – AND – far more casualties. I think we need to insist on benchmarks, but give them some slack. Freedom in an odd bird…people who’ve never had it aren’t sure how to deal with it. In time that will change. Vigilance and resolve need to be our course of action for the present time.
John Konop for U.S. Senate – It’s time for a change!