Sometimes inspiration comes from the strangest sources. I was at work today, placing nose firmly to the grindstone, when I heard my boss talking to somebody today about Iraq and the proposal to pull our troops out. He had a good point that I agree with - since we were in Germany and Japan first, shouldn't we pull out of there? The threat from the Nazis and the Chrysanthemum Throne has long since passed. It took us almost a decade to withdraw from Serbia, and that was a country harboring no threat to us, simply the UN's desire to stop "ethnic cleansing." (I noticed that occurred with VERY little fanfare, since I thought we were still there!)
So why the hurry to get out of Iraq? Now, maybe Bush can pull a Clinton and say that the troops will be home by Christmas, just not specify which year. But I look for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, simply because it's the place close to our biggest threat. After World War 2, we left a forward guard in Germany and other places scattered around Europe because the Soviet Union was our biggest threat. I remember John Kerry didn't want those troops pulled out last year when it was an issue. But I'll bet he's right there wanting a date certain for our withdrawal from Iraq.
If we give a date to pull out early, it's just common sense that the enemy will lay low unless we have defeated them thoroughly. In WW2, we stuck around after the enemy was defeated and are still there. In Korea, we still are there because the enemy wasn't defeated, it's only a truce. So the enemy still sits and awaits the day we leave, and they rattle a saber once in awhile.
In Viet Nam, we turned tail and months later the enemy won. Fortunately, the domino effect didn't occur like we feared, but Viet Nam is still a Communist nation and millions were slaughtered in Cambodia in the decade after we left.
When we defeat the enemy totally, we can leave. We had successes in the 1980's ousting Marxists in Grenada and Nicaragua, and extracting Manuel Noriega from Panama. We do not sit in any of those countries now, and they're no threat anymore. A success in anyone's book.
Thus, it follows given these examples that it's in our best interest to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan. If for no other logical reason, is it not better to fight and kill the enemy someplace else rather than here? They are now the ones bringing the fight to us over there in Iraq. When they are defeated, the Islamic jihadists will have given their lives in vain defending an archaic system and fanatical subsect of an otherwise respectable religion.
On the other hand, if we do leave Iraq like we did Southeast Asia, the fledgling Republic of Iraq will be overrun by a sea of militants from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and either we'll be thrown back in again to save them or they will perish into an Iranian-style tyranny. The Iraqi nation, reborn under our wing, will be aborted.
Come to think of it, since the Democrats are pro-choice, their Iraq position now makes perfect sense.
