- What if President Bush was wrong and Iraq and Afghanistan were not key to the "war on terror"? If that is the case we had an expensive war with a loss of life for Americans at about 3500+ over the 5+-year period. However, a dictator has been removed from power, terror camps were destroyed, women are gaining freedom (e.g., voting and going to school), the seeds of democracy have been planted, and there have been no attacks on USA soil in over 6 years. Who among us would have thought that possible in the weeks following September 11, 2001? While only insignificant amounts of weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, there is sufficient evidence indicating that they were there prior to the war, and Saddam Hussein was not forthright in his dealing with the United Nations and the United States.
- What if President Bush was right? In the long haul we reduce terrorism and are better off, but it was still expensive and there was loss of lives (as is always the case in war).
- Could it have been handled differently? Should he have waited on the United Nations? Did certain countries have a conflict of interest? Did the weapons of mass destruction argument go too far? Those are all good questions. The answers, however, do not address whether Iraq can be a free country, whether their citizens are better off and whether we are better off without Saddam Hussein and with an American presence in the Middle East.
- We must define our objectives going forward, develop a plan and tentative timetable to complete the task and accomplish those objectives; we also must recognize that certain objectives have already been achieved (determined that no weapons of mass destruction ("WMD") threat currently and removed Saddam Hussein from power and possibly deterred attacks on our soil). The Iraqi's must take responsibility for phase II - rebuilding their country.
- We must protect our troops from potential attacks by our Iraqi allies.
- While free speech is important, protests at a military funeral will be treated as a "Hate crime" and severely punished with mandatory jail-time.
- I've heard a lot of people say recently that the Iraq war is a failure. I understand politics etc., but I started wondering why it was/is a "failure."
- I note at least 5 specific successes of the war. While we can argue about whether the cost/time/lives were worth it, denying these successes means we aren't willing to give the U.S. credit for anything positive:
- An evil dictator has been removed from power.
- We gave a country the opportunity for democracy (they have not picked it up as they should have - but they had/have that opportunity).
- We have given women in Iraq and Afghanistan a greater role in their societies.
- We have not had a significant terrorist attack against a U.S. interest outside of the war zone.
- We are certain there are no WMDs there now and no meaningful training camps.
- Any country not signing:
- No U.S. aid
- No U.S. Trade
- No immigration from; deport all citizens of such country
- No travel privileges in the U.S. for their citizens.
- I'm simply asking us to consider how we define a just war or a successful war or the standards by which we are labeling "failure." This is not just an exercise. We must know these standards, because we will at some point be faced with the question again: "Do we go to war?" How do we decide the answer to that same, difficult question? If the answer is that we can never have a successful war because of the risk to lives or economic costs, then we are not long for the world as a sovereign state. People die in wars and wars are expensive
Goals: Develop plan, support our troops and unify our country
Reasons: We have legitimate interests in the Middle East and a unified country offers more hope for success. Defined objectives allow us all to measure success and establish a timetable. It is important to remember that before the invasion of Iraq, we were attacked on numerous occasions: first World Trade Center attack, USS Cole, Somalia, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and, of course, 9/11. If we also consider the beheadings, attack of the school in Chechnya and the random killing of innocent civilians, we must recognize that evil forces are at work in the name of Islam (whether small or large portion thereof). Why does Islam get a "free pass" on this or on its positions with respect to women, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and homosexuality by those who oppose the war? The clear and stated principles of these folks who undertake terror are to oppress women and destroy the American lifestyle and have an Islamic state around the world. We seem to forget about the consequences if we do nothing or lose these battles. We can never forget the sacrifices of those who have served and those who have been killed or injured in this war. It doesn't do any good to say "Not my war" or "Not my President," if you are enjoying the very freedoms being protected.
"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for war." -George Washington
"The First casualty of war is truth." -Hiram Johnson