Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: America is in Iraq to stay

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

    Default America is in Iraq to stay

    Link

    We are in Iraq to Stay
    November 21st, 2005

    America’s political elites have a secret they don’t intend to share with the voters.

    Democrats claim to want our military out of Iraq more or less immediately, though only three of them have the guts to vote that way. President Bush promises we will stay until the job is done and no longer. Both camps know full well that nobody holding elective office in Washington D.C. today will live to see the end of our military presence in Iraq. It is quite likely that nobody now numbered among the living will still be drawing breath when the last American soldiers come home from Iraq, even taking into account advances in medical technology.

    A victorious nation either establishes a permanent troop presence on the battlefield or it loses the fruits of victory. A win or a draw followed by retreat will always degenerate into a defeat. If there is such a thing as a law of history, this is it. Consider just the few examples from our own short history.

    Two hundred and twenty years after the Revolutionary War we still have troops along the east coast of North America. A hundred and sixty years after the Mexican-American War we still have troops in the Southwest. A hundred and forty years after the Civil War we still have troops in the states of the Confederacy. Sixty years after World War II we still have troops in Germany and Japan. Fifty Years after the Korean War we still have troops guarding Seoul.

    We left Cuba after occupations in 1906 and 1912 (retaining only the naval base at Guantanamo Bay). Fidel Castro is our reward. We left Europe after World War I and we got World War II. We left Vietnam after we had bought a stalemate with 50,000 lives and the result was our most humiliating defeat.

    When you leave, you lose. Defeat is the only exit strategy and in this instance defeat would be catastrophic. The stakes could not be higher.

    Everybody with a firing synapse recognizes that the status quo ante bellum in the Middle East was unacceptable. The status quo gave us 9/11. If we fail to change it dramatically, the status quo is likely to cost us our power, our wealth and millions of American lives. Terrorism is nothing less than an Islamic challenge to America’s world leadership. Either we rise to the challenge and crush the challengers or the Islamofascists will realize their dream of replacing America at the apex of the world pecking order and, at a minimum, our way of life will die.

    To date, the invasion of Iraq has been our only real response to the Islamic challenge. The Democrat argument that Iraq is a distraction from the real war in Afghanistan is comically inverted. The war in Afghanistan was a game of whack-the-mole far from the enemy’s center of gravity. Iraq is a major oil-producing nation. It is on the Arabian Peninsula, which is the source of both the wealth and the religious ideology that makes the enemy so dangerous. Doing in Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan would be a major step toward the defeat of Islamofascism.

    That is our goal in Iraq and we can only achieve it by staying indefinitely, just as we have in Germany and Japan. For the foreseeable future, the American military will have to be the dominant force in Iraq to make civil war unprofitable. No faction has anything to gain from a fight as long as our troops are there to bolster the other factions and crush any revolt. The Sunni “insurgency” has been busily proving that point for some time. As long as American troops are in Iraq, democracy is the best available deal for all concerned. If they left, the centripetal forces in Iraqi society would quickly tear apart the government we are building. The people in charge of that government, whoever they are, will beg us to stay because their physical survival will depend on us.

    And stay we will. We will secure an ally precisely where we need one most. We will also maintain a powerful military presence in a strategically vital location. In the event that we need to kill people and break things in either Syria or Iran, the bases we are establishing in Iraq will be extremely useful, if not essential. Even if our Arab and Persian War never escapes beyond the borders of Iraq (which seems absurdly unlikely), our military presence within those borders will put pressure on our surviving enemies just as our army in Germany once pressured the Soviet Union.

    Even if the Democrats ride an anti-war wave back into power, our troops will remain in Iraq. This is not because the Democrats are incapable of doing anything as monumentally stupid as abandoning Iraq. The Democrat Party was, after all, largely responsible for our abandonment of Vietnam. No American government will abandon Iraq because doing so would be to take ownership of the next terrorist attack on our homeland.

    If America ever left Iraq the terrorists would crow about their great victory. They would announce that we are weakened and vulnerable and call for renewed attacks against us. An attack would come, and the administration that retreated on the verge of victory could not escape the blame for it. Very few politicians in either party are reckless enough to take the kind of political risk that withdrawing from Iraq would entail. All the talk of timetables is empty political posturing.

    The whole public debate about Iraq is a frivolous sham. It proceeds on the assumption that we have options which are, in fact, long since foreclosed. We are at war; it is a time to be serious. The foolish whining about withdrawal is profoundly unserious.

    Power begets responsibility. We are the world’s dominant power and our position comes at a price. Somebody will always be itching to knock us off our perch as long as we occupy it. We will have to deal with each challenge as it arises or suffer the consequences of a hard fall. It’s tough at the top. On the other hand, if you aren’t the lead dog, the view never changes.

    Grow up America. You have to take the bitter with the sweet. A permanent American presence in Iraq may be a bitter pill, but it is one we will just have to swallow.

    J. Peter Mulhern is a frequent contributor. He is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.
    Got it off of another board but it does seems to hold it's merit in regards to why withdrawing from Iraq is simply not an option at this stage, something that over 400 US Congressional Reps seem to all agree on.

  2. #2

    Default

    Without doubt, staying in Iraq is certainly an expensive option for US military...

  3. #3
    EeSang's Avatar Hak Saeng
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Pasadena, California
    Posts
    1,068

    Default

    Two hundred and twenty years after the Revolutionary War we still have troops along the east coast of North America. A hundred and sixty years after the Mexican-American War we still have troops in the Southwest. A hundred and forty years after the Civil War we still have troops in the states of the Confederacy. Sixty years after World War II we still have troops in Germany and Japan. Fifty Years after the Korean War we still have troops guarding Seoul.

    We left Cuba after occupations in 1906 and 1912 (retaining only the naval base at Guantanamo Bay). Fidel Castro is our reward. We left Europe after World War I and we got World War II. We left Vietnam after we had bought a stalemate with 50,000 lives and the result was our most humiliating defeat.
    50 years after the Korean War we still need those soldiers to stay in Seoul. Atleast until N.Korea becomes more reasonable and stable. The US will always protect Japan as long as they don't have a significant military, which was part of whatever contract and until it is broken.

    Why not house US soldiers in US states, where bases were already established? Why go out of our way to build bases where conflicts have not happened and most likely will not until the very end? IF the US were to be attacked, where would they most likely to be attacked from? Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean. That's the East Coast, Southern States, Western States. Revolutionary, Mexican-American, and World War II.

    And I'm sure you can't blame WW2 on US soldiers leaving Europe. Especially with the quality of US soldiers at the outbreak of WW2, they wouldn't have done much good either.

    Staying in Iraq would be very expensive, as would have been staying in Vietnam. I'm sure keeping soldiers in other countries are equally expensive, if we're paying for it. Throwing money at things to solve problems isn't going to be too effective right now or in the near future.
    Last edited by EeSang; November 21, 2005 at 07:08 PM.

    If I spam, give me another half hour to wake up completely.

  4. #4
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    And I'm sure you can't blame WW2 on US soldiers leaving Europe. Especially with the quality of US soldiers at the outbreak of WW2, they wouldn't have done much good either.
    It was a reference to America's political and diplomatic involvement at the end of WWI; Wilson's 14 Points proposal, the drive towards founding the League of Nations only to have it fail because Congress wanted nothing more to do with Europe and didn't ratify it's charter. America pressing for the Allies to be lenient with post-war Germany only to have it overturned by the French and British. The list goes on and on, all of which provided un-resolved threads that eventually grew into issues that had to be dealt with all over again in WWII.

  5. #5
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Is this the new Pro-War tatic? Use the truth (or half truths) instead of flatout propaganda...
    "In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." - Karl Marx on Capitalism
    Under the patronage of the venerable Marshal Qin. Proud member of the house of Sybian.

    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS)

  6. #6
    Seleukos's Avatar Hell hath no fury
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, US
    Posts
    8,866

    Default

    :sign_stup

  7. #7
    Templedog's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    698

    Default

    that post is very stupid.. not even worth the time for me to point all of it out ......


    They got lucky and hijacked some airplanes. I could of done that drunk. War on terror is BS.

  8. #8
    Eric's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,149

    Default

    Oh it's a bunch of bullwash. There is no 'Islamic Challenge'. For that to happen, every Islamic Country in the world would have the challenge America. So far, only Iraq has done so.
    Better to stand under the Crown than to kneel under a Flag

    Life is fleeting, but glory lives forever! Conquer new lands, rule over the seas, build an empire! World Alliances

  9. #9
    imb39's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Patrician Citizen Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    20,872

    Default

    Iran? Syria? Libya? These haven't been to pro American...

    Having said that we have - Russia, China, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, and a whole host more. My God, it's a pan Asi-Ameri-Afri-European movement. You're all doomed! Doomed, I say! Doomed! (in the voice of Fraser [Dad's Army*])

    *Dad's Army was a BBC comedy about the Home Guard in WW2. Hilarious.

  10. #10
    Eric's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by imb39
    Iran? Syria? Libya? These haven't been to pro American...
    Well, that's true. But they haven't openly challenged the United States Military. If they had done that then the guy would have been realistic when he said 'Islamic Challenge' but those countries haven't militarily challenged the US. Besides, it seems a little unfair to say 'Islamic Challenge'. Why not 'Middle Eastern Challenge'. I'll tell you why: It's because he blames the Muslims for all the ****ed up stuff happening to America. They can't acknoledge that some people don't want their help. And so they blame it on a scapegoat instead of admitting their own mistakes.
    Better to stand under the Crown than to kneel under a Flag

    Life is fleeting, but glory lives forever! Conquer new lands, rule over the seas, build an empire! World Alliances

  11. #11

    Default

    Well, that guy writes some realistic stuff but seems to be of rather limited perspective in most cases.

    As an example his attempts to say how it was USA which made Germany and Japan democratic instead of their OWN democratic traditions. We have gone this through already in numerous threads.

    Similarily this fool has not read the studies regarding terrorism. Occupation of native soil is behind nearly every suicide bombing made. By occupying Iraq USA does not reduce terrorism or threat of terrorism but expands and feeds it.

    Similarily his idea that because USA is currently superpower you guys have some kind of divine right/responsibility to meddle with as many things as possible. He seems to forget that history teaches us that more you meddle with others, more you make enemies. And more you make enemies faster you will come down when they band together and you have no friends to support.

    This guy has few good points but seems to be limited to Fox as a source and too USAcentric view of the world.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  12. #12

    Default

    Of course they will stay until the job is done! He just doesn't mention what this true 'job' is. What do you think, when the oil is depleted, will they keep on paying the expenses of keeping Iraq occupied? The will probably move their parasitic activity to another resourceful country, if they haven't done so yet by that time.

  13. #13

    Default

    The entire thing really is that simple.

  14. #14
    Rolanbek's Avatar Malevolent Revenent
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    limbo, in between here and there
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    J. Peter Mulhern is a frequent contributor. He is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.

    oh...so he isn't a government official, or member of the press writing a cleverly researched article.

    Just another amateur playing at social conscience and polictical insight.

    Zo how lonk hff you yew had zis attenshun seekink behaviour?
    Really?
    Zis is verrrry interestink....where you breastfed?


    R
    November 06, 2006 02:10 PM If I knew you were going to populate the Curia with cheapshots, you never would have gotten promoted. - Anon

    Love mail from when Rep came with daggers to stab you...
    Join the Curia, loudmouths spewing bile for your entertainment.
    Contents:Sirloin of deceased Equine, your choice of hot or cold revenge, All served on a bed of barrel shavings. may contain nuts

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolanbek
    J. Peter Mulhern is a frequent contributor. He is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.

    oh...so he isn't a government official, or member of the press writing a cleverly researched article.

    Just another amateur playing at social conscience and polictical insight.

    Zo how lonk hff you yew had zis attenshun seekink behaviour?
    Really?
    Zis is verrrry interestink....where you breastfed?


    R
    remember people are paid by parties and government to write articles now.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  16. #16
    Rolanbek's Avatar Malevolent Revenent
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    limbo, in between here and there
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    Okay maybe i didn't make the irony heavy enough...........



    R
    November 06, 2006 02:10 PM If I knew you were going to populate the Curia with cheapshots, you never would have gotten promoted. - Anon

    Love mail from when Rep came with daggers to stab you...
    Join the Curia, loudmouths spewing bile for your entertainment.
    Contents:Sirloin of deceased Equine, your choice of hot or cold revenge, All served on a bed of barrel shavings. may contain nuts

  17. #17

    Default

    this is by design

    all the bush wars are unwinnable, lose-lose.

    we're not going anywhere, except further east http://www.newamericancentury.org/

    The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
    oh you mean imperial conquest, bossing 3rd world countries around, and human sacrifice?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •