Vagabond Loafers: Leaving Iraq

Leaving Iraq

Aaron Jackson — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:26:00 -0700

I asked my brother Adam, from The Sitter Downers, to help me explain why leaving Iraq is a bad idea. Below are his comments which I agree with wholeheartedly.

I am most likely in the minority in believing that we should stay in Iraq. War is terrible. I don’t like it. I wish people didn’t have to die. I wish the world was at peace, but since I’m not a lib…

1) If we left there would be no order whatsoever. The Iraqi government and military is not ready to do the job, even though it should be by now. If there is a chance that something like Cambodia would happen again, like after we left Vietnam, we should stay.

2) We started this mess (sort of) so we should finish it. There are Sheiks in Iraq who are going out on a limb in their respective communities, and they are counting on us to back them up.

3) Bin laden has referred to us a paper tiger. Al-Queda and the middle east in general think that America doesn’t have the stomach for war, and they are right. Our soldiers operate under ridiculous rules of engagement. That is to say, we are at war but aren’t allowed to be killers. More “ruthlessness” during this war may have ended it by now. Our enemies are counting on what the North Vietnamese counted on and received. They are hopelessly out gunned, but they know that if they make things bad enough and gruesome enough there is a large element in America who don’t understand war is necessary and let their emotions rule in regard to it. The terrorists are hoping to win by default. When we’ve had enough we leave. In my opinion America needs to remind the bad guys that we are tougher than they are. In effect the war is “good for our brand”. We will never do this of course. We need to erase the notion that America has a lot of weapons but wont use them. The overall policy of appeasement/apathy through the last fifteen or so years is part of, in my opinion, what opened the window for 9/11. There were numerous attacks on American interests during the 90’s that we basically did nothing about. Unfortunately the people we are dealing with aren’t nice guys and they understand one thing—a bullet to the head.

4) Iran is actively involved in Americans dying, with fighters and weapons coming over the border. Not to mention, their President wants to destroy is real. This is another country that we should not be sending weak signals to. Leaving Iraq is not only surrendering to Al-Queda, it is also surrendering to Iran. With Iran injecting itself into the world stage we would be stupid to send a message like that.

5) Oil. The left’s accusations is that we went to war for oil and in a sense I believe we did. Some would have you believe that the US went to take Iraq’s oil and start shipping it over here—BS. Whether the left likes it or not, oil is the life’s blood of the world, and we need to protect our interest where the oil is. Having an oil producing country friendly to us, right in the middle of the whole mess would be huge. Whether or not that will ever happen I don’t know.

6) Our investment in billions of dollars and thousand of dead Americans is huge. Four thousand Americans dead. Twenty five thousand wounded. I’m not OK with leaving all that behind in the sand.

7) The main reason not to leave is what we are doing there. We are killing terrorists, and they are joining up and showing up to be killed. Those men want us dead and my kids dead so they must die. We have been killing 1,500 terrorists a month. It took less than twenty to bring about 9/11.

8) Leaving = Surrender

9) Our enemies will never win in a firefight. They are COUNTING on the American populace to win for them. Dissenters may be genuine in their opinions but they need to use a little more wisdom when expressing those opinions—especially those that are on the public stage. Anti-war sentiments, no matter how well intentioned, wind up on Al Jezeera used as propaganda against our soldiers.

I am willing to give a little on why we went the first place, and I freely admit that we have screwed up a couple things in a major way that we should have known better about. But the current reality is that we are there, and to leave tomorrow would be insane.

"Leaving Iraq" by Marcie

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:31:35 -0700

My Anthony, That is a lot to read and I see your logic. I agree with you, thanks for taking the time to write down your views on the Iraqi War. I voted for W twice too, I can't imagine what a Democrat would have done with 9/11. My faith directs me to the Bible. I believe God is sovereign and that He places whom He wishes over the nations of the world, see Psalm 2. Also look at what took place in Daniel Chapters 4 and 5. King Nebuchadnezar was a secular king that God placed over the most powerful country in the world. But after God got thru with him that king said: "for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdome endures from generation to generation; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What doest thou?" So, I pray "God's will be done." and I pray that in the meantime, we citizens of America do the best we can to "Do the right thing", whatever that may mean to further His plan.

"Leaving Iraq" by Torri

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:55:30 -0700

Okay, I read it...Anthony's not a Lib after all. But I still agree with Adam on most of his points. Maybe we can all agree on this...let's win the stupid thing and quick.

"Leaving Iraq" by Anthony Martin

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:11:43 -0700

That's a joke right? I get it.

"Leaving Iraq" by Torri

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:40:10 -0700

Holy cow!! That's a lot to read. I'll just agree with Adam and get it over with. Sorry Anthony.

"Leaving Iraq" by Anthony Martin

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:37:59 -0700

I come off as a flaming lib just because I look at the war in Iraq as something we should evaluate and question. But I'm not a lib because I think we have a just reason for this war. I voted for W. in both elections. I trust his military assessment, I will continue to trust him while he's in office. I even think if Ron Paul became president on the non-interventionalist ticket, then he changed his mind once he became president, I'm ok with that too. I believe that in principle, the war should be fought if there are good reasons to fight. I assume we have good reasons for continuing to fight and, for whatever reason that they can't explain those reasons to us. If Ron Paul does a 180 if he took office, it wouldn't bug me.

I trust that Bush has his reasons beyond what is commonly known. I can see why other people might not trust him, especially on this point. I want to be sure we have good reasons without having to know what those reasons are, so as a concession, I want to send someone in who has a clear agenda to leave. Once the new president briefed, and he (or, God help us, she) still wants to pull the troops, we should leave.

On the other hand, if the really good reasons are not hidden, then we are left to discuss your specific points:

Withdrawal

If we left there would be no order whatsoever. The Iraqi government and military is not ready to do the job, even though it should be by now. If there is a chance that something like Cambodia would happen again, like after we left Vietnam, we should stay.

There's always a chance, so we will never leave. Unacceptable. The Iraqi government was not established out of the citizen response to oppression. We parachuted in and handed them their government. It's a bit like just giving a teen-aged boy a new convertible for his birthday. They didn't do what it took to obtain it, I have doubts that they value it as it is. It may have features they don't want, but we can't imagine why they'd look a gift horse in the mouth. Then again, maybe my analogy is totally wrong.

The idea that millions would die like after we left Vietnam is a prediction. It's just like the prediction made about going to war in the first place. Remember? Cake-walk? How can we let prognostication like that lead us by the nose?
Who's War?

We started this mess (sort of) so we should finish it. There are Sheiks in Iraq who are going out on a limb in their respective communities, and they are counting on us to back them up.

All I'm saying is that the Iraqi rebellion against Sadam should have started this war, not us. Even then, we'd be prognosticating that helping the Iraq rebellion wouldn't turn out like Afghanistan back when we were on the side of the rebellion lead by bin Laden. Yeah, that was smart. We helped fight the Communists in Afghanistan only to have the rebellion install the Taliban. Wonderful. So neither way works. Just another example how a non-interventionalist approach makes sense. I admit, I could be wrong about that. But please tell me where my logic is flawed.
Doing What It Takes

Bin laden has referred to us a paper tiger. Al-Queda and the middle east in general think that America doesn't have the stomach for war, and they are right. Our soldiers operate under ridiculous rules of engagement. That is to say, we are at war but aren't allowed to be killers. More "ruthlessness" during this war may have ended it by now.

I agree 100%. It's war, we should have no restrictions on how we go about killing people and breaking things. But since we do have these restrictions, why do it at all? We should be no-holds-barred. Instead, we're destroying bridges in Iraq and rebuilding them again, while bridges in the US (Minnesota) are collapsing or ready to collapse.

Our enemies are counting on what the North Vietnamese counted on and received. They are hopelessly out gunned, but they know that if they make things bad enough and gruesome enough there is a large element in America who don't understand war is necessary and let their emotions rule in regard to it. The terrorists are hoping to win by default.

If we aren't willing to actually show up and do it right, if we won't act like terrorists because we allow emotions to rule, then we have forfeited and they should win by default. I am for a war where we act like we're at war. But this is stupid.

When we've had enough we leave. In my opinion America needs to remind the bad guys that we are tougher than they are. In effect the war is "good for our brand". We will never do this of course. We need to erase the notion that America has a lot of weapons but wont use them. The overall policy of appeasement/apathy through the last fifteen or so years is part of, in my opinion, what opened the window for 9/11. There were numerous attacks on American interests during the 90's that we basically did nothing about. Unfortunately the people we are dealing with aren't nice guys and they understand one thing-a bullet to the head.

I agree, and I agree we just don't have the stomach.
Iran

Iran is actively involved in Americans dying, with fighters and weapons coming over the border. Not to mention, their President wants to destroy is real. This is another country that we should not be sending weak signals to. Leaving Iraq is not only surrendering to Al-Queda, it is also surrendering to Iran. With Iran injecting itself into the world stage we would be stupid to send a message like that.

Right, so the obvious solution is another half-assed war with Iran. Brilliant. We have never stopped sending weak signals. I don't see how it's surrender. Calling it surrender is just an appeal to emotion by use of dysphemism. Instead of calling it "surrender," I think the correct phrase is "being realistic in light of the fact that we know what we need to do but we just won't do it, so let's cut our losses and the heck out of here, oh, and thanks for all the fish."
Life-Blood

Oil. The left's accusations is that we went to war for oil and in a sense I believe we did.

In a sense?

Some would have you believe that the US went to take Iraq's oil and start shipping it over here-BS.

Personally, I would have you believe we wanted to increase supply in our region. Leaving their oil in their region would free up non-iraqi oil for our region. Same difference, more ethical. What's the beef here?

Whether the left likes it or not, oil is the life's blood of the world, and we need to protect our interest where the oil is. Having an oil producing country friendly to us, right in the middle of the whole mess would be huge. Whether or not that will ever happen I don't know.

What is the big deal about owning this? The left called it Blood for Oil (a play on words for the hugely successful Food for Oil program that was really Palace for Sadam for Oil program). Whatever you want to call it, I agree that oil is the life-blood of the world and worth fighting over if we are willing to actually fight. I'll dispense with playing the "we won't do what it takes so let's just not do it at all" card for the third time.
Vanity, vanity

Our investment in billions of dollars and thousand of dead Americans is huge. Four thousand Americans dead. Twenty five thousand wounded. I'm not OK with leaving all that behind in the sand.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
The Main Reason

The main reason not to leave is what we are doing there. We are killing terrorists, and they are joining up and showing up to be killed. Those men want us dead and my kids dead so they must die. We have been killing 1,500 terrorists a month. It took less than twenty to bring about 9/11.

Given: Islam + poverty = terrorist

Are we willing to remove Islam, poverty, or both? If not, then there will be terrorists, deal with it. I know, why don't we just kill the potential terrorists? Oh, wait. We have been doing that.
Weak Argument

Leaving = Surrender
surrender | su render |
verb [ intrans. ]
cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority : over 140 rebels surrendered to the authorities.
- [ trans. ] give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand : in 1815 Denmark surrendered Norway to Sweden | they refused to surrender their weapons.
- [ trans. ] (in a sports contest) lose (a point, game, or advantage) : she surrendered only twenty games in her five qualifying matches.
- ( surrender to) abandon oneself entirely to (a powerful emotion or influence); give in to : he was surprised that Miriam should surrender to this sort of jealousy | he surrendered himself to the mood of the hills.
- [ trans. ] (of an insured person) cancel (a life insurance policy) and receive back a proportion of the premiums paid.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that we submit to their authority. Are you saying if we leave we should submit to their authority in order to make sure our actions fit?
Propaganda

Our enemies will never win in a firefight. They are COUNTING on the American populace to win for them. Dissenters may be genuine in their opinions but they need to use a little more wisdom when expressing those opinions-especially those that are on the public stage. Anti-war sentiments, no matter how well intentioned, wind up on Al Jezeera used as propaganda against our soldiers.

We have a butt-load of propaganda to deal with ourselves. It reminds me of "Fear will keep the neighboring systems in line, fear of this battle-station."

I am willing to give a little on why we went the first place, and I freely admit that we have screwed up a couple things in a major way that we should have known better about. But the current reality is that we are there, and to leave tomorrow would be insane.

I'll let you have the last word on this.