| rdfs:comment
| - by user Alarican There is one thing I do not understand about the Democrats. As of yet, I have heard of no convincing explanation, by anyone who wants us to get out of Iraq ASAP, of how this makes us safer. In fact, no one has even bothered to explain what will happen after we pull out of Iraq at all, much less explain why getting out is in the best interest of the US. As I see it, the argument for staying in Iraq, outlined by Bush when he announced the Surge just before the State of the Union, is that if our forces pull out: And I haven't heard a single Democrat explain it to me.
|
| abstract
| - by user Alarican There is one thing I do not understand about the Democrats. As of yet, I have heard of no convincing explanation, by anyone who wants us to get out of Iraq ASAP, of how this makes us safer. In fact, no one has even bothered to explain what will happen after we pull out of Iraq at all, much less explain why getting out is in the best interest of the US. As I see it, the argument for staying in Iraq, outlined by Bush when he announced the Surge just before the State of the Union, is that if our forces pull out: 1) The Iraqi government eventually falls, not to internal sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, but to the proxy forces of Shia Iran and Sunni Al-Qaeda. 2) This fall serves the purposes of both Iran and Al Qaeda in several ways: a) by destabilizing the area, preventing a Western-style Democracy from taking root in the region; b) discrediting US military power, and thereby encouraging further attacks on Wester targets; c) providing a safe base of operations for further terrorist activites in a chaotic failed state; d) providing Islamofascist militants with the wealth of Iraqi infrastructure and oil revenue. 3) With Iraq's political infrastructure in shambles and the Islamofascists mobilized, Iran and Al Qaeda will either divvy up its resources and operate from separate sections thereof, or take to fighting among each other; yet in either case one, the other, or both will emerge stronger than they are now. 4) The strengthened Islamofascists will proceed to further attack Western interests, as they see them, with greater ability and zeal, both American and European, both regionally and globally, whether in the form of moderate or nominally pro-Western governments in the region (Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon) or more directly in the form of direct attacks on our soil. 5) This increased action will invariably lead to greater destabilization in the region and further, and more successful attacks at home. In both cases, the number of deaths at the hand of Islamofascists will increase dramatically. Now, if we pull out, #1 happens, point blank. In fact, Sen. Feingold and Rep. Murtha have explicitly listed its inevitability, anyway, as a reason for us to pull out of Iraq. Whether it happens if US troops remain is an open question: short of a crystal ball, I can't see anyone being absolutely certain of that in all cases. Yet if we pull out, it WILL happen. So, the question becomes: do 2 - 5 happen? US forces leaving Iraq "as soon as possible" only makes sense if 1) you don't believe that the collapse of the government will result in everything else outlined above, or 2) you want the Islamofascists to win in the end. The only immediate positive result of our immediate withdrawal is the decrease in the number of US Military deaths. While this isn't in itself a bad thing, I fail to see how it's necessarily a good thing, especially if #2 - #5 end up happening; for while our soldiers would not be dying now, they would be eventually be facing an invigorated Islamofascist force attacking from a more strategically fortified position. Any casualties they would take in that conflict would dwarf the casualties they are taking now. Furthermore, US military lives saved would be swamped by the immediate increase in Iraqi casualties. It is known, not suspected, but known, that the violence in Iraq, directed at both the US military and Iraqi civilians, is not internecine, but imported from foreign Al Qaeda and Iranian sources. If we're no longer there to be both target and counter-attacker, Iraqis will become targets, dying in larger numbers and less able to take their foreign invaders on. I'm wondering what's humane about abandoning them to that fate. But again, I'm less concerned about the immediate outcome in Iraq than I am about the eventual regional destabilization, and the broadening stepped-up tempo of operations that Islamofascists will undertake with the moral victory of Iraq and the acquisition of Iraqi resources. I am trying to figure how in the hell that scenario is even remotely in America's interest. And I haven't heard a single Democrat explain it to me. __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)