A poll question yet to be asked.

By paulseale Posted in Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Promoted via my iPhone. Yes, it is that cool. -Erick

On this fourth of July I've been thinking quite a bit about American resolve and the effects upon this nation if we take the United Kingdom's route and act as if there is no war on terror. The consequences I believe will be frieghtening.

Mnay Democrats tout polls showing most of the American people disapprove of the Iraq war as a sign that its time to fold up shop and head home. The result is a seemingly endless determination by elected officials within our own governement to surrender Iraq and our future to people who seek to do harm to us.

Words cannot describe the frustration I feel about this.

Read on . . .

Still, I wonder about the core American attitude. Do Americans really believe there is no war on terror? More specifically, do Americans want to lose in Iraq.

Those are two questions which are not asked, but need to be in light of claims made by a broad swath of Democratics who say the American people are on their side.

It is true that Iraq is not sunshine and roses. At the same time, though, many things are being accomplished outside the lense of the main stream media's coverage.

If Americans knew the truth of what was going on in Iraq and the report comes back in September that we are making progress - then what? I believe Democrats and many in Congress know what - that support may very well climb for the war.

It is for that same reason we will never, ever, see the poll question of whether Americans would like to win in Iraq or if there really is a war on terror.

My guess is, with the war in Iraq, that most people and almost all Democrats would not give a direct "yes" or "no" answer. They claim that we already have won or lost, or that it cannot ever be won or lost. People have different views on what would constitute "winning" or "losing." In recognition of that fact, even I'm not sure if that is a fair question to expect a yes or no reply.

I would also guess that most people and at least a plurality of Democrats would acknowledge a war on terror, but they would not see Iraq as a part (or at least an essential part) of it.

Lately, I've noticed alot of positive articles from Iraq in papers like USA Today, the LA Times & the Boston Globe. I wrote about the Globe article here. I told a friend last night that the Democrats worst nightmare isn't an improvement in Iraq; it's an improvement in Iraq that the media reports. There's another nightmare scenario which I talk about in my post. The best thing is that it's beyond Democrats' control.

If Gen. Petraeus testifies in September that civilian casualties have dramatically dropped in Iraq, Hillary will have to switch positions again. She'll look as confused as a chameleon on a multi-colored piece of plaid.

then I bet they'll support its continuance.

This fight is not placing a great physical strain on American society. Our economy is doing well, and we've not had to institute rationing or onerous taxes or a draft to fill the military's ranks. The President must make this case, again and again and again.

He also needs to explain that our goal is an Iraq that can hold together and not threaten its neighbors. To "win," we don't have to wipe terrorism from the face of the earth, or even Iraq. (I think that many nervous Americans feel that that's what we have to do if we are to "win" in Iraq). The President needs to explain that, too. A turbulent but unthreatening Iraq is still a goal worth working and fighting for.

We should also remember that, the last time we held a true national referendum on whether to continue in Iraq or not, GWB was reelected with the first true popular vote majority in recent memory.

I suspect, in our certain circumstances, most Americans won't opt to quit---IF the situation is properly explained to them. The President, assisted by we bloggers, will have to do that explaining.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Precisely what I believe.

did Erick promote this because of the content - which IS very good - or just to make the point that he's better than rest of us plebeians who have to make due with something less than an $800 phone.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Good question.

But I'm also sure you posted good content at just the right time for Erick. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

There might be something to this.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

He is telling us, with a minimal degree of subtlety, that his phone is far superior to our phones.

But on to the question at hand: No pollster is ever going to ask those surveyed, "Do you want to lose the Iraq war?"

What those surveyed are getting from the media and the Democrats is that the War in Iraq is lost but is not part of the war on terror. The pollsters won't crack those myths.

Unfortunately because they will not be asked, Paul's questions are the ones which should be asked. Perhaps they could be combined into this one: "Do you think this is all a game?" The left and the press treat it like a game, while to the rest of us, it is terribly real.

Probably because the President has made this war sound optional. Freeling people is nice, and I'd like to buy the world a democracy, but....
If this war was presented as an urgency of national survival, then Americans would take it more earnestly. But to do that would entail speaking some unpleasant truths about islam, oil and payment due for our comfortable lives.

Americans with opinions of pulling out of Iraq no matter what, would change their minds IF and when British type attacks happen in America.

The question of GWOT would be answered right off, but how many could wrap their brains around WINNING in Iraq.

We KNOW the Democratic leaders would be screaming it's GW's fault, but I think an attack type reality slap would shake the American people to smarten up.

I wonder if Americans with opinions of pulling out of Iraq no matter what, would change their minds IF and when British type attacks happen in America.

Or would it go the other way? "I thought you said we were fighting them over there so we didn't fight them here?! Now look! Why are all our troops over there, when we should have spent more attention to defense at home?"

We KNOW the Democratic leaders would be screaming it's GW's fault, but I think an attack type reality slap would shake the American people to smarten up.

So, to get this straight, the Dems think an attack on US soil would show people that the war in Iraq is a waste, and you think an attack on US soil would show people that the war in Iraq is vital.

Well, as long as the means are the same, I guess cooperation is possible.

Asking, "do you want to win or lose" at anything isn't even a question worth asking.

The important questions are, what are our goals, and are they attainable? The polling shows, I think, that more Americans' opinions are shifting from 'yes' to 'no' on the second question. If progress is being made in September, this is likely to change.

I tend to think that most people would answer yes to the 'Is there a war in terror' question, mostly because we've heard the phrase so often over the last six years. I tend to think that wars on nouns are poor ideas, in any case, but that's really a subject for another thread.

Right now Democrats are driving us toward surrender and defeat while saying that Americans are behind them when the truth, I believe, is quite different.

If everyone wants to win, then whats stopping us from unifying and defeating our enemies in Iraq?

paulseale

I keep reading this stuff out unifying and defeating our enemies in Iraq, but I have no clue what Victory is and the President has not given the American public a clear vision of what that illusive thing is.

Is it the Iraqi government standing on it's own two feet, defending it's own sovereignty?

Is it Suni and Shia not killing each other in a civil war who's roots go back further in history than this country has been in existence?

Is it stopping Iran from providing support to the insurgents in Iraq?

Then candidate Bush in the lead up to the 2000 election set a standard of not entering into any foreign war without an exit strategy. Well guess what, President Bush now has no exit strategy and no definition of what "Victory" is. It has now become as Collin Powell and others put it, "You break it, you own it".

The clock is indeed counting down to September, I hope there is progress being made, but if there is not, it is time to change strategy, our Dien Bien Phu moment may be upon us.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

I keep reading this stuff out unifying and defeating our enemies in Iraq, but I have no clue what Victory is and the President has not given the American public a clear vision of what that illusive thing is.

It's all in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

The problem is that we're still working on the "short-term" goals, and people are frustrated since the long-term goals seem so far away and, to some, impossible to achieve.

This plays into the upcoming elections, as well. It's a mess, politically.

NP
I've read this before, when it came out in 2005, and the key to where the defeat or victory is coming from can be seen in the following short term goal.

"Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces."

If there is a failure, it will not be American caused, it will be because the Iraqi government fails. The same Iraqi government that hides out in the green zone and wants to take the summer off because they have more important things to do.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

If there is a failure, it will not be American caused, it will be because the Iraqi government fails. The same Iraqi government that hides out in the green zone and wants to take the summer off because they have more important things to do.

Realistically, you must remember: failure in Iraq is not an option. There is no conditional clause that says "unless the Iraqis cause the failure".

But politically, if the failure is their fault, it's then not our fault or Bush's fault. This is quite important.

You can burn the candle at the other end, too, by clearly defining success: "The definition of success, as I described, is, you know, sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. There are parts of our own country that, you know, have got, you know, a certain level of violence to it."

That's pretty good stuff. But you have to be careful, too, because if you go too far, even if you're honest, people get unsettled:

"I don’t think you can win [the War on Terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world--let's put it that way."

(Which is one of the most straight-up things Bush has ever said on the GWOT... to bad he got lambasted for it.)

If everyone wants to win, then whats stopping us from unifying and defeating our enemies in Iraq?

The short answer is: our enemies.

This is also talked about in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

One of the talk show hosts quoted a poll that asked Americans if they thought winning in Iraq was important. About 61% said winning in Iraq is important.

Contrary to the MSM’s constant focus on the negative Americans do get it. If the Dems thought that people were so against the war they would cut the funding today. They don’t cut it because their own internal polling shows that Americans like being winners.

Most Americans are not impressed by

Hillary Clinton’s Global War on Talk Radio
Barac Obama’s Global War on the Religious Right
John Edwards’ Global War on Bumper Stickers

Soldiers' Angels

Ive heard of such a poll. Know where I can find it? Would love to use it, because I believe its true.

I listen to several pod casts during the week including Rush, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager and a few others. I think it was Rush who made the reference and it might have been a Rasmussen Pole.

If I find it I will get back to this thread and post it.

Soldiers' Angels

Poll on winning the war

I stand somewhat corrected in the overal poll. 61% think winning the war on terror is the most important.

Soldiers' Angels

Our president has done our cause--and his, though that's only tangentially important--great harm by his inablity to articulate a cogent, consistent case for the battle for Iraq. "Win"? How has he defined that? "War on terror"--what is that? (And Slade is right--an awful phrasing. "War against theocracy," "war against Islamic terrorism," "war in defense of the Enlightenment"--these would be vastly better). I've come, reluctantly, to conclude that Bush is, in fact, an extremely limited man who had one or two good ideas but has no clue where he got them or how they fit with anything else. That said, and however one terms the struggle, he has at least been willing to join issue with those who wish to kill us, albeit fitfully and ineptly.

Is it worth it to keep American soldiers in Iraq, in order to achieve this objective: a unified and stable and democratic Iraq, which provides a representative government for the Iraqi people; is underpinned by new and protected freedoms for all Iraqis and a growing market economy; and is able to defend itself and not pose a threat to the region.

If that sunds familiar, it is---it's the mission statement of MNSTCI, the US command responsible for training Iraqi forces.

I bet most Americans can get behind this kind of "victory." Let's ask them!

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Why is it always assumed that our only two choices in Iraq are to keep fighting exactly the way we are now, or pull out entirely? This all or nothing attitude empowers our enemies, both Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party.

A lot of Americans believe that part of the Iraq War is not necessary to win the war on terror, which is why they support pulling some troops out. (There are also pacifists and hippies who are against all war, but that is a separate topic.)

Iraq is a democracy now, and only two of our original goals haven't been achieved:

(1)The Iraqis cannot defend yet themselves against external armies, like an invasion from Iran.
(2) Al Qaeda is active in Iraq.

So it would seem sufficient to keep enough troops in Iraq to fight AQ and to prevent countries like Iran and Turkey from invading Iraq. And we fight AQ with Special Forces in every other country besides Afghanistan.

Would an Iraqi civil war be dangerous to the US if we kept enough troops there to ensure that Iraqis maintain control of their country, and not Iran or AQ? If Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites started killing more of each other than they are now, how would that hurt the war on terror? What does being the police force of Iraq have to do with the war on terror?

If it were that simple.

I would agree with you if the light foot print strategy had worked.

What you are describing is what we used over the past few years. What would happen is Al Qeada would move in after we moved out.

What the present strategy does is hold the ground and give Iraqis a chance to strengthen their hand.

Trust me when I say for my self, I would love to draw down as soon as possible. The caveat is this: if we draw down before we achieve victory then we will have a resurgent number of Al Qeada.

So in an ideal world you are 100% correct. Unfortunately, it aint.

Maybe after a few more months we will be in a position to do what you are saying (which is what I hope), but right now it would be really bad to draw down and lose our recent gains.

Good points, though.

We Say to everybody I am out, but stay .....to spy......order soldiers everbody wear beard and to speak arabic language, we fight in Iraq but not with Iraq people , we fight Muslin people 1,5 billion all over of World .....they want to make fear...We show Evil to Al Qaeda or new factions .So, We will have to be done at 10 years future. No BODY talk about USA, IT is a quit people but now ...now.....

We are PLAGUE to Al Quaeda God Bless America

You wrote "What would happen is Al Qeada would move in after we moved out."

If we moved out, I think the most likely scenario is a Shiite strong man takes over. His first order of business is going to be to brutally crack down on AQ. He will use the tactics that we are unwilling to use. AQ's blood will be running in the streets and every shadow will contain a possible bullet in the head.

The bigger danger is that Iraq and Iran would align. I suspect that the long standing bad blood between those countries would eventually come to the surface and they will only align against an outside force (like a US presence).

Putting a pro-Western Shiite in power (like the Shah) is our best hope at this time.

We move out first and watch next move from ours enemy, maybe same nuke your secound move, to Check MAch.
They can not move here, we watvh out. thanks

We move out first and watch next move from ours enemy, maybe same nuke our secound move, to Check MAch.
They can not move here, we watvh out. thanksneed fix their Sistem,

I would agree with you if the light foot print strategy had worked.

First, the strategy has worked. Al Qaeda has been thrown out of those parts of Iraq which don't want it, like the Shiite and Kurdish areas.

Second, light foot print is our only choice. We still have a light foot print. We don't have nearly enough troops to do a classical occupation. In World War II we had over 15 times as many soldiers in uniform.

In any case, we could never beat Al Qaeda that way anyway, not if the Iraqis wanted them to stay. Occupation and large amounts of conventional troops are not the way to beat guerrilla terrorists. It is playing into the terrorists' hands.

After all, Al Qaeda did not have to move lots of their fighters into Iraq. They could have pulled everyone out. The reason why they pounced is because bin Laden sees that conditions are favorable to him, that we are leading ourselves into a trap by defining military victory as propping up the Iraqi government instead of killing the enemy. We are defining victory as something outside our control, so that Americans fret and worry about minutia like whether Iraq signs an oil treaty or whether the Iraqi parliament takes a summer vacation.

What would happen is Al Qaeda would move in after we moved out.

Al Qaeda could do that any way, any time we left. And the Sunnis could have thrown AQ out years ago, like the Shiites and Kurds did, and like some Sunni tribes have done over the last year. Ultimately the Iraqis will decide when Al Qaeda is thrown out.

If we were totally focused on fighting AQ, everyone would support the war, so the time and number of troops wouldn't matter. We would be fighting mostly with local police and US Special Forces, like we fight AQ in almost every other country.

I'm so confused by the stated war aims that I just ignore 'em. Complicated value propositions never really sell well.

The idea that the world's peoples long for freedom and popular democracy and would obtain it for themselves given just the right push from us, is one of the oldest conceits of American foreign policy. But that doesn't make it true.

However, there's no question that we must have a permanent military presence in Iraq, for reasons that sound (uncomfortably, to many) like Realpolitik. It's not a matter of winning or losing, it's a matter of staying in the game. But what will it take for the American people to accept this politically?

I think Americans have to stop dying in significant numbers in Iraq. That's a war goal that's easy enough to state and easy enough to measure. If we can achieve that militarily, then the pressure for withdrawal will dissipate, and we can get on with the strategic task of building a reasonably-strong ally in the region and permanently guaranteeing her security.

Am I being too cynical, reducing the conduct of a deadly-serious military and foreign policy project to a PR problem? Maybe. But as long as more Americans get their news from MSM Nightly News than from any other source, that's the reality we have to deal with.

WE WON!!!

GREAT BLOG P

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

While WW2 had overwhelming support from the American public, it was a different society back then. Celebrities were making public service announcements in favor of the war effort, many were going over and fighting themselves. Media worked in conjunction with the government to spread the message, and movies were pre-screened to show only positive messages. Motivational posters were spread throughout the country and the impact they had was profound.

I think one of the problems the administration has had with garnering support for the war has been in how they sold it. There are a lot of great lessons that could be learned from how the public was sold on WW2, some of which could be used today. They got the whole country involved by getting people to recycle their raw goods or just investing in war bonds. Everyone felt like they were a part of the effort. I think the President today has distanced the war too much from the public and it has cost him support.

he would still have a media and an opposition party against him. And, possibly more significantly, too many members of his own party are more concerned with playing armchair CINK or prognosticator on TV, then taking on the unpatriotic statements of their "honorable" colleagues or the very press people they want to invite them on their shows. The Left must be defeated also if we are to defeat our jihadist enemies.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

was in the fact that the American and European Left supported our involvement in WWII, but only after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. They were screaming bloody murder about the war, going so far as to sabotage war production in Britain, etc., right up until June 22, 1941, at which time they began screaming "Second Front Now."

Nothing's changed.

In Vino Veritas

In WWII we were confronted by an enemy that was so fanatical in its' devotion and so afraid of personal dishonor that almost every single soldier fought to the death in virtually every engagement with our soldiers. The unwillingness of the Japanese to surrender or admit when they were beaten resulted in OUR decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and fire bomb numerous Japanese cities. Only the most naive and unreasonable person could say that we did the wrong thing. Those historians who have said so, never took the time to understand the nature of our enemies. Sadly that mindset has not changed much over the past 62 years. In fact, it has gotten much worse due to the climate of political correctness and moral relativism that has been thrust upon our society. The problem is that any honest understanding of our enemies would lead one to the conclusion that a much stronger response is the key to victory.

We cannot leave Iraq because, like it or not, we have made it a part of the larger "war on terror". (The War on Islamic Fundamentalism, Radical Islam or the Jihadist mindset would be better titles in my opinion.)Regardless of how solid or tenuous the ties to terrorism were under Saddam Hussein EVERYONE will agree that Al-Qaeda is there now. How can educated people in this country not see that our departure is their victory? We MUST stay and we MUST win. How you ask? Hammer and anvil is how we win.

The hammer is the US Military and the anvil are the Iraqis. In between those two forces is AQ and anyone in Iraq who does not assist in the pacification of the country in some way. Diplomacy and political negotiation must take a back seat for the time being. Security must be tangible to the average Iraqi before the Iraqi government can really get the work done to right their ship of state and build confidence among the people. Simple equation applies here: no security + no progress = no confidence and no hope.

The insurgents must be given two choices, either you stop fighting each other and help us root out and destroy the foreign born terrorists in your midst, or you will be treated as their allies and exterminated right along side them. We must go street by street, house by house and room by room until we have found and destroyed all those who are preventing Iraq from taking control of its' internal affairs and rebuilding. Our government must meet with all significant Iraqi players (including Sadr) and let them know their options and make it crystal clear that we do not want to run their country, but we will be there until Hell freezes over if that is how long it takes to destroy AQ and anyone who stands in the way of a free and stable Iraq. We may have to replicate Falluja type carnage across Iraq in order to achieve victory, but the level of destruction is contingent upon the amount of Iraqi cooperation. It is up to them. No neutrality will be tolerated. (The terrorists get two options as well...death or surrender.)

In 2003 most of us thought we had been really lucky with the Iraqis melting away and not making us fight a battle for Baghdad. Sadly we are fighting that battle now and we are losing to a degree. We must take the city back and we must do so as quickly as possible.

Our true enemies do not fear us because they hear so much noise in our country about getting out of Iraq and they logically assume that we do not possess the courage to fight. Our soldiers must be allowed to show them the magnitude of their misjudgement. Our political leaders on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Ave must sit down behind closed doors and come to an understanding about just what is truly at stake here and stop all this nonsense. Our enemies are not afraid to die...We must not be afraid to kill.

We must go street by street, house by house and room by room until we have found and destroyed all those who are preventing Iraq from taking control of its' internal affairs and rebuilding.

That's impossible, and in fact has already been tried in Iraq. Guerrillas blend in the population and it is impossible to tell them from civilians. Being more brutal and killing more civilians would hurt, like it always does in guerrilla wars. A guerrilla war is not a conventional war, and Iraq is not World War II.

It's also not our job or our business to occupy Iraq or pacify it in that fashion. It would be a waste of American lives to attempt it.

We took out Saddam's government, removed all possibility of weapons of mass destruction, and gave the Iraqis democracy. Our only remaining assistance for Iraq should be to protect them from invasion from another country for awhile. Other than that, we fight the real war on terror, which is Al Qaeda. We fight AQ in Iraq and everywhere else on the globe.

The biggest problem with Iraq now is the Iraqis. If they wanted to, they could sign oil and peace treaties today, and uniting together could have every AQ terrorist dead or out of Iraq within a few months.

"That's impossible, and in fact has already been tried in Iraq. Guerrillas blend in the population and it is impossible to tell them from civilians. Being more brutal and killing more civilians would hurt, like it always does in guerrilla wars. A guerrilla war is not a conventional war, and Iraq is not World War II."

First off, I was not comparing the present war to WWII, I was comparing the mindset of our enemies. The Japanese soldiers were largely fanatical as are the jihadists.
Secondly...One of my brothers is a Lt Colonel in the Army National Guard and served in Iraq in '04-'05 as his brigade's S-3 (Operations officer). When he and I were discussing my post today I asked him what has happened since the Marines finished the job in Fallujah. He advised me that several local militias have formed in the area and are doing a great job helping our forces find and eliminate the hostiles. If we had not sent the Marines in though, it is a good bet that we would not have gotten that support.
My opinion is that the Iraqis will support us in our efforts if they see that we are willing to flatten a city to destroy the terrorists. They must believe that we will finish what we start. Why should they believe that now when the hear so often about America wanting to tuck tail and run?
The job in Iraq is not finished until Iraq is stable and capable of providing for its' own security. They cannot achieve stability without our assistance and right now, we need close to 100% moblization of the Iraqi people to be able to expel the terrorists and give the Iraqi government the chance to succeed in building hope and confidence. I didn't say it would be easy, but we must do what is necessary to succeed in our mission.

Today I watched a few minutes of the History Channel's "Revolution." Amazingly, the small part I watched talked about how when the War for Independence didn't end after a few months, public support vanished and Washington had a hard time finding supplies and new recruits.

As much as I love America, I think there are just a lot of Americans who want to give up when things get tough. Thankfully we have people willing to go to war and a President who won't quit until the job is done. I worry about the 2008 election as we could elect a President who will take us back to the Clinton era policy of ignoring threats to our security.

Buzz

Buzz Blog

Clinton era policy of ignoring threats to our security.

You do him a disservice. It's not difficult to find the many things Clinton did on the terrorism front--so much even the ACLU was working against him!

Come on whats the threshold for that ? Making a harsh statement? Trying to enforce a law ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

not being able to prosecute bin Laden and Jamie Gorlik for two.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

First - We continue fight for more liberty, 110th Congress please, out Iraq and fix law.

Second - Energy Independence Now - No more money to Terror

THIRD - Not Pollution, Everybody - Governament, American people and Illegals people

Last one - Social justice, Not the Corruption, Rights to all people in United States of America, here we see big revolution, 12 million people ( Bring back bill thid time S.1639, God said listen.) or more Fight togheter with American People for more LIBERTY.

God Bless America

whatch movie and think about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akzPNks_NMo

I'm not interested in fighting for liberty in the abstract. How about fighting for the United States?

Energy independence is ridiculous at the present time. No one's willing to pay for this, and economic isolationism hasn't done wonders for, say, North Korea.

Pollution is arguably a local problem. I'm not aware of any significant concerns in my area. Nor am I interested in paying large amounts of money for barely detectable improvments.

Social justice would require removing large numbers of illegals - that's the justice part of it. (I know what you mean, and I sympathize to a certain extent - but I'm not interested in expanding our welfare state through open borders.)

Meant to reply to Jose above.

In Vino Veritas

How is anyone going to be able to agree on what is a "win" or a "loss" in Iraq. I personally believe that abandoning Iraq to the forces of chaos would be wrong and will be disastrous both in terms of loss of Iraqi civilian lives and our war against terror. However, I question how much blood and treasure we can or should expend in this effort. Are we progressing our goals in the overall war in terror or are we putting ourselves in greater danger. Our military is overstreched and our enemies are growing. nyfinn

IF, If we leave Iraq with what we have accomplished at this point in time we might be bringing disaster to America. IF we stay in Iraq we might crush Al Qaeda. IF a frog had wings?

I dont consider our troops have lost anything or that they will loose anything if we pull out. Our troops have done just exactly what they were told to do and done it well, they need to be honored. True, if we pulled out of Iraq right now the current government might fall but it might not too. There is a world of IF's with this occupation and I dont believe our continued action over there is going to completely rid Iraq of any terrorist organization, no more then we have rid them from our country. You think we dont have terrorist organizations in this country? I did some checking online and found that Hamas has a base of operations in Detroit. Are they as fanatical as the one's Isreal is dealing with? I very much doubt it, but they're here.
I really hate hearing that we are loosing the war! Our troops are not loosing anything! They are doing exactly what they were sent there to do. The problem is that we think that they should be completely irradicate terrorists from Iraq and I dont think that is possible, ever. We have their government up and running. We've assisted in building their armed forces. Their government and security forces aren't what we hoped they would be but we've done our job. Now it's time to pull out and let them stand or fall under their own power. We loose nothing! Our troops come home with honor! Then maybe the President since he's all loosened up with commuting Libby's sentence, can get to work on pardoning the troops that committed war crimes. In one sence I couldn't see how months old " He said, She said" could be used as evidence to convict these troops. In another, having spent several years in the military I could see how it was done, butt kissers! Unfortunately there are a lot of them in the military. Ok, you might be wondering how they got confessions from these kids. I cant believe anyone with the sence God gave a piss ant would ask that question but I'm quite sure there is some. These kids that were charged were convinced by authority figures that it would be in their best interst to confess and implicate their fellow soldiers and get a lighter sentence for themselves. You know that this happens in civilian life everyday. Is it right, NO.

A recent poll doesn't ask about winning or losing, but it does give a detailed and thorough analysis of voters' views on foreign policy:

http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/schoen.ppt

I can't help but wonder how 67 percent think the war in Iraq "creates rather than eliminates terrorists" and 60 percent want all or most troops out, yet 46 percent believe it is an "essential part of the war on terror."

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service