After the President's Speech
I have listened to the president's speech and the response delivered by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Il). They both have left me with more concerns.
The president said the goal is for Iraq to stand as a free democracy that is at peace with its neighbors and not a haven for terrorists. While they differ on the need for more troops, both the president and Sen. Durbin placed the responsibility for achieving this goal on the shoulders of the people of Iraq. As I see it, there in lies the problem.
Are the people of Iraq willing to do what is needed to achieve these goals? How badly do they want it? Are they willing to stand up and say to those the insurgents it is time to stop? Are they willing to turn the focus of the fight from insurgents vs. the U.S. to insurgents vs. Iraq? Do they describe this in terms of their own sovereignty?
In the late 1700's the founding fathers of the United States and the many solders who fought for a new way wanted victory. Yes we had help from the French. But the patriots were willing to fight for what they believed and were fighting to win. They stood strong both during the war and during the delicate process of building a new government. At the time Benjamin Franklin wondered if the sun was rising or setting on our democracy. Over two hundred years later it seems the sun was rising as a result of generations of people who wanted their country to remain free and to be the best.
Will the people of Iraq fight to keep the sun from setting on their democracy? If they are willing to stand, sending more U.S. troops is worth it for the sake of peace. If they are not, we will find neither the president's plan for more troops nor a plan for withdrawal (be it gradual or cut and run) will make any difference.
Update 1/11/07 10:15 am: Michelle Malkin posts pictures and comments from her visit "In the slums of Bagdad."
The president said the goal is for Iraq to stand as a free democracy that is at peace with its neighbors and not a haven for terrorists. While they differ on the need for more troops, both the president and Sen. Durbin placed the responsibility for achieving this goal on the shoulders of the people of Iraq. As I see it, there in lies the problem.
Are the people of Iraq willing to do what is needed to achieve these goals? How badly do they want it? Are they willing to stand up and say to those the insurgents it is time to stop? Are they willing to turn the focus of the fight from insurgents vs. the U.S. to insurgents vs. Iraq? Do they describe this in terms of their own sovereignty?
In the late 1700's the founding fathers of the United States and the many solders who fought for a new way wanted victory. Yes we had help from the French. But the patriots were willing to fight for what they believed and were fighting to win. They stood strong both during the war and during the delicate process of building a new government. At the time Benjamin Franklin wondered if the sun was rising or setting on our democracy. Over two hundred years later it seems the sun was rising as a result of generations of people who wanted their country to remain free and to be the best.
Will the people of Iraq fight to keep the sun from setting on their democracy? If they are willing to stand, sending more U.S. troops is worth it for the sake of peace. If they are not, we will find neither the president's plan for more troops nor a plan for withdrawal (be it gradual or cut and run) will make any difference.
Update 1/11/07 10:15 am: Michelle Malkin posts pictures and comments from her visit "In the slums of Bagdad."
Labels: government, Iraq, President Bush
posted by Dennis | 9:32 PM
5 Comments:
The bottom line is that many of the Iraqi people really don't want the goals that we want them to have. We want them to have a government where religion's influence is minimal and they want just the opposite, each for their own clan/brand of their system of belief.
The best we can do is kill those who are a threat to us and leave it at that. Maybe carving the place up would keep them more focused on each other instead of our troops? Whatever the case, we have to realize we are not going to get all that we want out of this.
"The best we can do is kill those who are a threat to us and leave it at that."
With Iran and Syria and who knows what other countries helping to keep the numbers of those who are a threat at high levels, I fear we may never be able to leave Iraq.
You make Michael Savage's latest idea almost sound reasonable. That is, if you are correct.
He now wants troops to do a full pull-out now and the US to fuel one side of a full scale Civil War from behind the scenes. Which keeps Iraqis killing each other instead of thinking about the USA. Same stuff the US has done before.
Can't say I'm for that plan.
Most Arab nations have a majority that will scream "death to America" in a heartbeat. But some have leadership that keeps things reasonably tame. While even they may not like America they fear America.
My plan of simply scorching some earth in the problem areas and then leaving helps keep that fear factor high.
We are going to have to lower the troop levels a lot at some point in the future. Our guys can only be rotated so much.
I'm not sure who we would back if we did so from behind the scenes. I must admit, given the current choices, your idea might best for our security.
Unfortunately it has no pretty ending at this point. I think Savage would support whoever would keep Iran busy.
I see America now doing what Russia and Britain have done in the past, in continually sending in more troops with no additional success.
The whole world knows our plan and it's foolish to think the enemy won't adjust for it. The only way I think a plan from Bush would work is if Bush lied to us intentionally in order to implement a different plan more easily.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home