The Argus Leader is predictablly advocating the cut-and-run option in Iraq:
We must make 2006 the year we will pull out of Iraq - except for the smallest of oversight forces - and let Iraqis get on with their lives, running their own country for better or worse, forging a government that works for them without being under the heel either of Saddam Hussein or the United States.
If we do withdraw from Iraq and the country plunges into civil war or falls to the terrorists, what should the United States do then? Should we go back in and re-liberate the country or let Iraq fend for itself? If we leave and Iraq collapses, would the Democrats be stupid enough to point a finger at Bush and the Republicans and tout how they failed in Iraq when, in fact, it was the Democrats that advocated leaving the entire time? The Democrats also appear so worried about America's image in the world since our invasion of Iraq. Yet, if we run from Iraq, what image does that send to our allies and enemies in the Middle East? I shouldn't have to point out what Usama bin Laden said when we ran from Somalia.
I'll point you to my post last week, quoting The Economist:
The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace. Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory. Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.
If such reasoning sounds negative--America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful--treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr. Bush's vision for the Middle East has soured. The road ahead looks bloody and costly. But this is not the time to retreat.
Recent Comments