Great article...I am a republican and voted for GWB, despite the fact that I don't always agree with his policies. That being said, I think he is doing an excellent job in Iraq. Sure things are confused and often it seems as if the people there are not always so keen to be liberated, but truth is, I think we are doing a great amount of "good" there. I will admit that I didn't care for Clinton, but he had some good points. It seems to me that no matter what Bush does, the democrats are going to harp on it. The economy is strong again, the Iraqi people as well as those in Afganistan have voted in free elections, and we are daily arresting or killing more terrorists who want to destroy us. Are we pissing some people off? Sure. But, unlike Clinton, Bush is not afraid to risk his legacy to do what he thinks ir right. If it were up to me, we would be an isolationist country and say to hell with the rest of the world. But because of our position as the lone superpower in the world, we can't do that. The next best thing would be to help others that are less fortunate than us.
Kennedy, Boxer, and the rest continue to operate under the assumption that the entire war was based on a lie. To a certain extent that is true. We have yet to discover any large cache of WMD's. But the fact remains that Iraq has had them and has used them. The next thing they harp on is that this war is distracting us from our mission to get Osama Bin Laden. It would be nice to capture him or kill him, but the war on terror is more than just one man. Do they honestly think that if we capture him, terrorism would just go away? Would the war on terror be over just like that? No. The war on terror will be a never ending war because people will always hate our way of life. With the war in Iraq, we have established a foothold in the region. We have shown the youth of that nation and those around them that America is not the great evil that they learn about in the schools. Our troops are doing a great job of spreading goodwill to the people their and I think, in time, they will respond positively to it.
Are there troops being killed on a daily basis? Sure, but occupation has always been more risky than war itself. In occupation, the enemy is hidden. We are at a greater disadvantage here because unlike the World War II, we have not comepletely obliterated the countries we fought against. The people's spirits are not comepletely broken. Even though it presents some problems in the way of putting our troops in danger, this is a good thing. Would Kennedy and the like be more satisfied if we approached the war from a more traditional standpoint of destroying the country and bringing it to its knees and then rebuild?
I don't think we will be out of Iraq for a long time. Strategically it's too important for the cause. In fact, we are not really out of any country that we fought against in the last hundred years save Vietnam. We still have troops in Japan, Germany, Korea, the Phillipines, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Afganistan. Where were the calls for exit strategies in those countries?
The president has made it very clear to everyone that he will stay until the job is finished. To me, that is an exit strategy. I don't see why it is that they don't realize that. There is no specific date, but the time will come when our troop strength will not be as large in Iraq.
In any case, I think that the democrats have very small memories. Just a few months ago they wanted Rumsfelds head because there weren't enough troops in Iraq. Now they are whining because we aren't pulling out soon enough.
I say let them continue to whine and complain. The more they do it, the easier it will be to win elections. Let them realize though, that everytime they speak and criticize the troops or our mission there, they strengthen the enemy. Since they hate this country so much, I am sure they are very happy with that.
