Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
But here's where the Dems and Repubs split. In fact, here's where some Repubs and other Repubs disagree. What does finish acutally look like? Is is it a matter of duration? Are we looking for the number of casualties to subside? Are we looking for certain 'heads' to be removed and or captured? What will order look like for Iraq? And the bigger question is how long will it take? If someone said, it may take another 5-7 years to get things on track, do we have the wherewithal to undertake such a task?
Are we actually waiting for a complete and absolute presence of peace and cease fire before we say we've won the war on terror? I don't know the answers to those questions and many of our politicians are grappling with the same thing.
Look, many of the Dems are saying if we 'stay the course', as it were, are we just saying we waited as long as we could to satisfy both sides of the aisle. I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.
|
I disagree with a lot that you're saying.
A very good friend of mine recently came home from his year long tour in Iraq and continues to think that there is a lot of promise there. The military objective isn't this abstract concept that your portraying it to be.
We're giving contracts out to the local population to help set up the infrastructure, and providing them security while they attempt to rebuild the country, while teaching the locals how to facilitate growth, and stability.
We're helping speed along the progress of businesses by making sure they have reliable resources (electric, water, gas, etc...). The thinking goes beyond beating down insurgents, beyond taking the "heads" of certain leaders.
The theory behind it is that as the economy grows, the nation will realize who are the good guys. Quite frankly, the country is sick and tired of all the fighting. They're yearning for stability, yearning for consistency. They don't deserve a surge of troops, and then a total bail out... resulting in widespread chaos.
We attacked initially, I didn't support the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to a parallel situation. We can't fix our mistake by bailing out, we can't let these people suffer because we ****ed up. It just isn't fair.
Ultimately, like I said earlier, It's about the economy:
If there are no places to work, no stability, no direction, then the youth will turn to what's in front of them. Instead of getting a job, raising a family, and working towards a better future, there will certainly be youths joining the insurgency. The problem will rise exponentially without economic success.
Conversely, if we do succeed, there is hope for a self sustaining democratic society. This isn't a lost cause. We aren't here dicking around. There is a clear cut plausible objective, and I think most people don't realize that. They watch the news, see the death, and lump it all into one big mess.
The biggest problem my buddy from Iraq had with the media, is that they don't report all the progress that's being made. We don't see the good, and get all fussy when someone suggests that it exists.
I'm not saying that the place isn't a war zone. I'm not saying that there isn't death and killing, because there absolutely is. What I am saying, is that there is a clear cut way to win, which is supporting the economic interests and hence produce stability and a self-sustaining government.