Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Surrender Should not be an Option

Surrender Should not be an Option ... We have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization.


Anonymous said...

Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Nope surrender should not even be considered. Only option is not peace but victory. Total victory. That ensures peace.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Victory was had when Sadam H.'s regime change came -- then with his trial -- then with his execution.

Victory came when the people of Iraq held its first election. Then again after the second election.

Victory is in the past.

Now it is time to go home, otherwise we'll need to mean total victory -- United States makes a 51st state.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Victory in the war on terror. Iraq is just a battleground, similar to Sicily being one battleground against the Germans.
Bin Laden is desparate to hit us. But his scarce resources have alternate uses. Those alternate uses are being used against us in Iraq, not Afghanistan or US soil but in Iraq.
Bin Laden would love to fight this war in Afghanistan. He feels comfortable there and feels he can mobilize his base there better than anywhere else. He also would like to return to his days of glory against the Russians. But that is his choice of battlefields not ours. Ours is in Iraq. And his base is being called to fight on our terrain, using our terms against our tactics. We own that battlefield.
Hence, as long as we lure his al queda base to Iraq to die for Allah we win.
Remember it took the Spartans 28 years to beat the Athenians and the Ageans 10 years to beat the Trojans. Perserverance is the key.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Italy was a partner with Germany in WWII.

Sure, Bin L is trying to hit the United States (world aggressors). And sure, he has scare resources.

So, we make it easy for him to hit us by being there. And, we give him and countless others more reason to hit us by being there.

So, how many more years would it take to have victory in Iraq against Bil L with your lure tactic?

How many more are going to need to die?

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I hate doing this but Italy was not an ally of the US during the battle for North Africa or Sicily(1942-1943) Besides we fought Germans in Sicily. Man I hate reminding people of recent history but it must be done.
Yes, we do make it easier for Al queda to hit us in Iraq. The battlefield is of our choosing. We own that battlefield. Bin laden would like the US or Afghanistan to be that battlefield but we have made it Iraq. And his scarce resources which have alternate uses are being bled in Iraq.
How many more US troops? Not one more than necessary for us to achieve total victory. Can't stand the blood, best not to show up for the fight. You will get in the way of the warriors while they weld their swords. Henry V comes to mind here.