War
What better way to start the new blog than to tackle the biggest issue of the day - war.
It has been disappointing to see the outrageous amounts of spin and hatred and prevarication taking place since the Iraq war commenced. I sometimes wonder if half the country forgot about 9/11 and the series of events leading up to the invasion. The solid majority of the country supported the president in his declaration that we must do whatever it takes to protect ourselves from the terrorists and those states who sponsor them.
When congress demanded that Bush first exhaust every avenue to pressure Saddam to comply with the UN, he did so. Despite months of diplomacy in the UN, France and Germany refused to allow any vote on sanctions for Iraq. Since then there has been clear evidence uncovered that high-ranking officials in those governments and the UN were getting paid off by Saddam, either directly or through the so-called "oil for food" program.
Without going into gory detail of history, the president ended by going to congress and asking for approval to commence the war in Iraq. And the vote was decisive, including plenty of Democrats and Republicans, to go forward. Despite a huge victory, the upcoming presidential campaign led a gaggle of Democrats who wanted the oval office to begin undermining the war effort.
Those who disagreed with the decision to go to war have only two choices today. They can either support the war effort and encourage our leaders to do everything possible to finish the job. Or they can undermine the war effort with protests and inflammatory rhetoric against the president, his cabinet, and the military, and basically root for the terrorists to win. It makes me very sad that most of these people have chosen the latter. How can our country survive if it is true that a giant segment of the population want to see us defeated?
Some ask the question, why Iraq? Why not Syria or Iran, the other two members of Bush's "axis of evil"? I think the answer is very simple. Iraq is right in the middle, somewhat weakened by the Gulf War a decade ago, and Saddam was openly defying UN resolutions about disarming and destroying WMD. If your goal is to eventually defeat terrorism, it makes sense to start in Iraq. A democratic and friendly Iraq will certainly have a major impact on the region, given that the effort is successful. A booming economy in Iraq with its citizens enjoying higher living standards and a voice in their own government will rub off on the people of Iran and Syria, who may replace their repressive regimes on their own simply through a desire to get what Iraq has. That's Bush's objective, and agree or disagree, I think people need to stop attacking him personally for this strategy that was clearly stated and easily understood from the beginning.
No one can engage in a debate on the Iraq war without discussing the famous issue of WMD. The fact that Saddam had them, used them in the war with Iran and against his own people, and refused to account for them to the UN mean nothing to the anti-war firebreathers. They were so quick to pronounce Bush a liar when the troops were unable to find the weapons after the invasion. The enemies of the president refuse to consider the question of what happened to those WMD we know Saddam had.
The simple logic of common sense is all that is needed to look at the circumstances and figure out what probably happened to Saddam's WMD. The months leading up to the invasion gave him all the time he needed to hide his weapons. I believe that's exactly what he did, and there are some reasonable but unverifiable reports of those WMD being moved into a willing neighbor (Syria) for safekeeping against inspectors until the UN backed down and they could be brought back into Iraq. There isn't another reasonable theory, because if Saddam had destroyed his WMD, all he had to do was tell the UN the details of how and when.
So now there are frequent car and truck bombs plus suicide bombers trying to disrupt the creation of the new democratic Iraqi government. And everywhere you turn there are people suggesting that these bombings are signs that things are not going well or even we are losing the war. Bush's approval ratings on conduct of the war are reportedly low, and more and more Americans are losing their stomachs for losing countrymen to wild-eyed Islamic terrorists half a world away. Too many are now saying, or thinking, that maybe we should just declare victory, wish the Iraqis luck, and get out.
News reporting ignores the facts of the positives in Iraq, such as free elections, a consititution on the way to ratification, restored power, open schools, a growing market economy, restored oil production, and many other successes. And reporting also skips certain details of the insurgency itself, failing to honestly identify insurgents as foreign terrorists imported from places like Syria and Iran. Most importantly, the reporting glosses over the fact that Iraq's #1 terrorist/insurgent leader, Al-Zarqawi, is one of bin Laden's lieutenants from Al Quaeda. (Not to mention he's not an Iraqi either).
Personally, I'd like to see a more aggressive approach. Our troops, partnered with the Iraqis, should mount a WWII-style house-to-house operation to clean out the insurgents from Iraq, city by city, until they are all killed or arrested and all of their bomb-making materials confiscated and destroyed. At the same time, I think we should find and eliminate terrorist camps across the Iraqi borders with Syria and Iran.
I fear the Bush administration has fallen too far under the spell of political correctness and may be trying to wage John Kerry's "more sensitive" war. Sorry, war can't be sensitive. It must be brutal and overwhelming, to the end of complete victory. No war should be undertaken without an absolute commitment to victory.
It has been disappointing to see the outrageous amounts of spin and hatred and prevarication taking place since the Iraq war commenced. I sometimes wonder if half the country forgot about 9/11 and the series of events leading up to the invasion. The solid majority of the country supported the president in his declaration that we must do whatever it takes to protect ourselves from the terrorists and those states who sponsor them.
When congress demanded that Bush first exhaust every avenue to pressure Saddam to comply with the UN, he did so. Despite months of diplomacy in the UN, France and Germany refused to allow any vote on sanctions for Iraq. Since then there has been clear evidence uncovered that high-ranking officials in those governments and the UN were getting paid off by Saddam, either directly or through the so-called "oil for food" program.
Without going into gory detail of history, the president ended by going to congress and asking for approval to commence the war in Iraq. And the vote was decisive, including plenty of Democrats and Republicans, to go forward. Despite a huge victory, the upcoming presidential campaign led a gaggle of Democrats who wanted the oval office to begin undermining the war effort.
Those who disagreed with the decision to go to war have only two choices today. They can either support the war effort and encourage our leaders to do everything possible to finish the job. Or they can undermine the war effort with protests and inflammatory rhetoric against the president, his cabinet, and the military, and basically root for the terrorists to win. It makes me very sad that most of these people have chosen the latter. How can our country survive if it is true that a giant segment of the population want to see us defeated?
Some ask the question, why Iraq? Why not Syria or Iran, the other two members of Bush's "axis of evil"? I think the answer is very simple. Iraq is right in the middle, somewhat weakened by the Gulf War a decade ago, and Saddam was openly defying UN resolutions about disarming and destroying WMD. If your goal is to eventually defeat terrorism, it makes sense to start in Iraq. A democratic and friendly Iraq will certainly have a major impact on the region, given that the effort is successful. A booming economy in Iraq with its citizens enjoying higher living standards and a voice in their own government will rub off on the people of Iran and Syria, who may replace their repressive regimes on their own simply through a desire to get what Iraq has. That's Bush's objective, and agree or disagree, I think people need to stop attacking him personally for this strategy that was clearly stated and easily understood from the beginning.
No one can engage in a debate on the Iraq war without discussing the famous issue of WMD. The fact that Saddam had them, used them in the war with Iran and against his own people, and refused to account for them to the UN mean nothing to the anti-war firebreathers. They were so quick to pronounce Bush a liar when the troops were unable to find the weapons after the invasion. The enemies of the president refuse to consider the question of what happened to those WMD we know Saddam had.
The simple logic of common sense is all that is needed to look at the circumstances and figure out what probably happened to Saddam's WMD. The months leading up to the invasion gave him all the time he needed to hide his weapons. I believe that's exactly what he did, and there are some reasonable but unverifiable reports of those WMD being moved into a willing neighbor (Syria) for safekeeping against inspectors until the UN backed down and they could be brought back into Iraq. There isn't another reasonable theory, because if Saddam had destroyed his WMD, all he had to do was tell the UN the details of how and when.
So now there are frequent car and truck bombs plus suicide bombers trying to disrupt the creation of the new democratic Iraqi government. And everywhere you turn there are people suggesting that these bombings are signs that things are not going well or even we are losing the war. Bush's approval ratings on conduct of the war are reportedly low, and more and more Americans are losing their stomachs for losing countrymen to wild-eyed Islamic terrorists half a world away. Too many are now saying, or thinking, that maybe we should just declare victory, wish the Iraqis luck, and get out.
News reporting ignores the facts of the positives in Iraq, such as free elections, a consititution on the way to ratification, restored power, open schools, a growing market economy, restored oil production, and many other successes. And reporting also skips certain details of the insurgency itself, failing to honestly identify insurgents as foreign terrorists imported from places like Syria and Iran. Most importantly, the reporting glosses over the fact that Iraq's #1 terrorist/insurgent leader, Al-Zarqawi, is one of bin Laden's lieutenants from Al Quaeda. (Not to mention he's not an Iraqi either).
Personally, I'd like to see a more aggressive approach. Our troops, partnered with the Iraqis, should mount a WWII-style house-to-house operation to clean out the insurgents from Iraq, city by city, until they are all killed or arrested and all of their bomb-making materials confiscated and destroyed. At the same time, I think we should find and eliminate terrorist camps across the Iraqi borders with Syria and Iran.
I fear the Bush administration has fallen too far under the spell of political correctness and may be trying to wage John Kerry's "more sensitive" war. Sorry, war can't be sensitive. It must be brutal and overwhelming, to the end of complete victory. No war should be undertaken without an absolute commitment to victory.
posted by Dan S. at 2:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home