Why Now?

The past few weeks, it has seemed as if someone turned up the volume on the Iraq war debate – not the war, the debate.

Actually, the war appears to be going better than ever, with the number of deaths falling, the Iraq economy growing and a political campaign in full-swing with participation levels shaming most U.S. elections. The Iraqi army now controls the ground in areas which used to require coalition troops, local Iraqis are turning in the foreign fighters who have so brutalized them in the past two years and the insurgency has fallen to putting out faked videos of their "offensives."

Yet the debate blares louder every day. "Pull out! Now! Not later, NOW! You know you’ll have to anyway sooner or later! It’s a lost cause, so get out! There’s nothing more we can do! OUT! OUT! OUT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"

Oh sure, there are a few more "controlled" voices calling for timetables to temper the outrageous suggestions – but their point is the same as the screamers: We’ve already lost, so let’s tuck our tail properly between our legs and accept the inevitable.

The argument is strange, and the mainstream media’s wall-to-wall promotion of it is frustrating and excessive, even if not surprising.

Still, why now? Why has this suddenly hit the top of all their talking points? Why are they now coalescing around this message? Why not 14 months ago, when it might have gotten Kerry elected (and things seemed at least as bad, if not worse, on the ground)? Why not last spring, when insurgent attacks remained high despite the first Iraqi election’s success? Why not this summer, when London was attacked and the momentum against the war internationally was peaking?

Why, when nearly all indicators have improved and there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel, do these opponents – many of whom once favored the war and until recently remained willing to "stick it out" until we achieved our goals - suddenly call for our precipitous exit?

Today it finally dawned on me: They want out because they now recognize we will soon achieve victory!

Your thoughts?

By George, I think you're on to something! If we were to win the war now, it might put a sudden halt to the DemocRATS' momentum! It could bring all of their vicory parties for the next presidential election (which I'm sure are already in full swing) to a screeching halt!

I guess I can't blame them though. If my political agendas were as shabby and shady as their's are, I'd want to protect the only leg I had to stand on too!

It isn't our leg, it is the leg of all of the guys my brother has been telling me about or their hand or the bradley that gets blown up and flipped into the tigris river all of these quotes are just from the last e-mail I recieved from him most of this has happened in the past month. Just last week a cousin of my wife was killed in Baghdad, he was a marine. Two weeks ago a guy that graduated from my high school was killed in Iraq.The fact is this is a war based on lies and American men are dying and being ripped apart because of those lies.

War is hell, haven't you heard that? You talk about "victims" and "whining" (reference the religious persecution thread) after posting a message like this? Your brother needs to vent all he sees and all he experiences, rather than keep it all bottled in. During the course of his time served, until his return home, I hope you can find the solace to be that sounding board, and will reserve your harsh criticism for the war as it may serve only to weigh him down.

The cries from the left are getting louder, and more ridiculous too. Here's what Howard Dean has to say on the subject.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm confused. I didn't think we were at war with Iraq, i thought we were supposed to be at war with terroism. How is pulling out of Iraq losing the war? How is winning in Iraq winning the war?

You nailed it, you are confused.

It seems you are as well. Or are you simply trying to say that if someone doesn't know the answers to those questions they aren't worthy of discourse?

Or perhaps you are just as confused as I am and trying to hide it in blind support of your fellow right wingers.

Take your pick, I don't care. I refuse to banter back and forth about an issue that you refuse to address. So far, your offerings have been:

In one breath you said you didn't know we were at war with Iraq, then in another that you didn't know pulling out of Iraq was losing the war. By implication, being at war in Iraq is synonymous with being at war with Iraq. You, in one sentence, have forever changed history. False dilemma.

And I nailed it when I said you were an asshole.

God knows celticradio is the best but some times integrity is worth being banned .

sorry Macfive

What integrity? Of whom do you speak? Is it a lack of integrity to point out someone who is blathering about a topic to which they can and should speak more coherently? I am referring to CelticCoalition, who by the way is the one I said is confused. Or possibly you think it integrity to post excerpts from a letter of a serviceman deployed in a war zone, as if our reading it would magically change our collective opinions (by the way, I got the distinct impression those excerpts were specifically chosen to give the appearance of coming from a scared little boy, which is something I guarantee your brother is not). I do think you reveal something about integrity, but sadly it is miles and miles and miles away from you.

Whether or not going into Iraq in the first place was "right" or "justified" can be debated elsewhere. However, here's how things stand as of now:
We went in, and eliminated their government, military and police forces. Leaving them in that state before they can take care of themselves is a disaster. Until they are able to police themselves, protect their own borders and govern themselves pulling out would be irresponsible and unethical. Before the argument is raised that entry in the first place falls into those categories, ask yourselves if compounding the problem would be acceptable.
Yes, there has been a price paid by coalition forces- in lives, equipment and money. However to pull out prematurely and leave Iraq in a state of anarchy, dictatorship, or letting it be swallowed up by a greedy neighbor would be a travesty. As things stand, by staying the course, the sacrifices have a chance to mean something. Would we like to look back on this as a wasted effort, or would we prefer to look at it as costly but ending with improvements?

Subhuman,

That is precisely why top democrats are pushing so hard for a withdrawal. They realize that victory is near, that the job is nearing completion. If we stay the course in Iraq and leave her well equipped to handle her own affairs, that is bad for the democrats. However, should they succeed in their attempts to bolster public support for an immediate withdrawal, then the disaster you mention would come to fruition, which consequently is good for the democrats. Why? Because it would fuel their anti-Bush engine, making his entire presidency and our military involvement an utter failure. Of course, without that withdrawal the argument for failure is still waged, but with far less momentum.

If we stay the course, disaster is a possibility. If we withdraw, disaster is almost assured. It could happen either way, however one way it's more likely than the other.

It's ironic, a very similar threada stareted about 90 minutes ago on another boards I frequent. I don't normally cross-post links, but for this topic I'm breaking my rule: http://www.vladd44.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6684

Whether or not we're winning or loosing is no longer an issue; we've already lost. Our unprovoked attack and occupation of Iraq has been declared illegal by the United Nations, and strongly opposed by everyone around the world with the exception of Tony Blair and Bush's "Coalition of the Coerced". The largest political demonstrations ever held in the history of the world were held internationally to oppose Bush's invasion of Iraq. According to the British Ministry of Defence, 82% of Iraqis "strongly oppose" the US occupation, and 72% have "no confidence" in coalition forces, and up to 65% believe attacks on American and British troops are justified. Less than 1% of Iraqis support the US occupation. Here in the US according to the most recent CNN poll 62% of Americans don't believe this war is winnable (and 51% believe it's increased the risk of terrorist attacks against the US, not lessened them), and according to the latest CBS/New York Times polls, 59% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, 52% believe Bush "intentionally misled" the country to start this war, and 58% believe we should set a timetable for withdrawal. With virtually no support internationally, at home, and especially among the Iraqi people themselves, we haven't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything other than piling up more bodies. We lost 58,184 brave Americans (and 2 million Vietnamese) before the last helicopter flew off of our embassy's roof in Saigon. How many kids are we willing to butcher in the name of George W. Bush before the same thing inevitably happens in Baghdad?

Only 6% of Americans think things are going "very well" in Iraq (CBS News/New York Times 12/6/05). They're either profoundly ignorant, profoundly stupid, or profoundly dishonest...or perhaps simply in a state of profound denial; an increasingly absurd illusion which members of the military and their families must grit their teeth and tenaciously cling to simply to keep from screaming.