The enemy is an ideology that has already proven they can hit our shores and kill thousands of civilians. Remember 911? Do you also remember that we were not in Afghanistan or Iraq then?
It is beyond me why Congress is so bent on repeating the complacent NIMBY attitudes displayed in the 80s and 90s, as the rise of Bin Laden, and others sanctioning his jihadist beliefs (do not believe the Dem perception that it is only AQ and Bin Ladin), increased unchecked and unaddressed. Instead of looking to the future of increased attacks, including on our own shores, we cut our military, and cut our foreign intel capabilities.
What is possibly more distressing than a Congress filled with selfish career politicians, with one eye on the polls and the other on the campaign funds, is the media. This would be the media that has spoon fed defeat to the masses for years, then loves to trot out their polls that reflect nothing but the doom and gloom they've served up. This would be the same "impartial, unbiased" media that addresses only the successes of the enemy, and reports shame on our successes by salaciously recounting trials of soldiers accused of murder and the activities at Abu Ghairab.
But as the 4th branch of power, who loves to say they are the gov't watchdog, they are missing the all important question... what happens when we abandon Iraq? To them it is as simple as stay, or go. They make no bones about their position in each and every story.... go is the only path.
Why oh why are they not holding politicians' feet to the fire about what happens after we leave? Occasionally someone asks. The pols answers are empty and without thoughtful substance... manifesting in an absurd assumption that belies historical actions of the enemy. "We are exacerbating the enemy by our presence in Iraq", they say (paraphrased).
Really?? Are we this stupid and gullible? By feeding up this this pat, assured answer,they expect us to believe that if we pull out of Iraq, the enemy will magically be pacified and leave us alone - content merely to devour only the Middle East. The media doesn't question this Pollyanna answer by politicians? Some watchdog they are....
Only a rare few media is asking the "aftermath" questions. In the last couple of days, I've posted a two stories, both citing the US Envoy to Iraq and the Iraqi FM warning our blind/deaf/self-serving Congress against a US pullout and the carnage to ensue. Today, I'll post another editorial from the Washington DC Examiner that goes a step further.
The editorial reminisces the parallels of Bush and Iraq to an isolated Lincoln, also besieged by a peace-at-all-costs Congress who was willing to split the nation to end the Civil War and remain popular. The DC Examiner points out the dire consequences of the bloodshed between the Shia/Sunni warring factions - echoing the matter of fact statement of the US envoy and Iraqi FM - reiterating the fact that radical Islam bases (Iran, AQ or any other radical/political Islam jihadist organization) will be staging grounds for assaults against infidels.
... it's becoming increasingly clear that the issue of reconciliation has become a smokescreen for American politicians who care for their own political fortunes far more than they do about the future of Iraq or the consequences of Iraq's collapse for U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Below, an extraordinarily bold op-ed (DC Examiner) in the beltway. This is about 2/3rds of the editorial. Read in entirety at the link above.
Like Lincoln, who faced politicians in both parties demanding peace even at the price of permanently splitting the Union, President Bush now must contend with Democrats and Republicans who for whatever reason lack the will to remain firm in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example, unilaterally announced that the “war is lost” before most of the additional troops involved in the surge Bush authorized earlier this year had even arrived in Iraq.
Since then, more U.S. troops on the ground inevitably has meant more casualties, but only the willfully blind cannot see that the surge is making a huge and positive difference in our favor. D-Day also meant more casualties, but in the end it ensured freedom. That is why we cannot be swayed now from the task before us in Iraq.
To do anything less will ensure consequences more horrific than anything yet seen in that deeply wounded country. Shia and Sunni will shed each other’s blood with abandon. Turks and Kurds will struggle to the death, and al Qaeda will plant roots possibly lasting for centuries.
The effects on the region will be just as dire. Iraq will become the staging area for wave after wave of jihadist terrorism against Western Europe and the United States. Iran, with its nuclear ambitions, will likely emerge as the region’s dominant power, endangering the very existence of Israel.
Worse still will be the consequences for us here at home if the voices of withdrawal are heeded. Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the bloodthirsty servants of jihad have made their aim to destroy America at least as clear as Hitler made his aims in “Mein Kampf.” Why do the Neville Chamberlains always among us never learn the lesson that appeasement of a totalitarian monster is, as President Reagan said of the Soviets, simply bribing the alligator to eat you last.
Like many others, we have been harshly critical of Bush many times on other concerns. He may well be the loneliest man in Washington. But he is right on Iraq, and he deserves America’s support.