Q&A Friday #66: How Much Longer Will We Be In Iraq?

Question: “We know we SHOULD be in Iraq until the job is finished. However, given the current political climate, how long do you think we WILL be in Iraq?” — RtWingNtCase

Answer: I’m in favor of keeping US troops in Iraq, on the frontlines, until the Iraqis can step up and replace us. At that point, which would probably come in late 2007 / early to mid-2008, I’d like to see us bring a significant number of our troops home while leaving troops there to help with logistics, air power, training, etc. Once we got to that point, American casualties would plunge. Then, once the Iraqis didn’t need our help on that front anymore, I’d like to see us have bases in Iraq long-term, maybe in the Kurdish area. So, in other words, we should be shooting for victory and long-term stability in Iraq.

That’s what I would like to see happen.

I hate to say this, but I think that what is going to happen is that in September, large numbers of Republicans are going to side with the Democrats and demand timelines in Iraq, preferably — from their point of view — timelines that will get our troops out of harm’s way before the 2008 elections really get rolling.

The result of that decision to abandon victory in Iraq for political reasons, by both Republican and Democratic politicians, will probably lead to genocide, the end of democracy in Iraq, more terrorist attacks in America, rising gas prices, and an enormous propaganda victory for Islamic fundamentalism and Iran.

Those are all consequences that could likely be avoided if these politicians were to put what’s good for America ahead of petty politics, but I suspect that a lot of them have come to the conclusion that they’ll benefit more politically from America losing in a hurry than winning in a year or two — I think they’re wrong about that, by the way, at least over the long term, but unfortunately, most politicians don’t think beyond the next election.

PS: The whole idea of setting a date when you’re going to surrender to the enemy is even more ridiculous than immediately surrendering because it means throwing away the lives of American soldiers in a lost cause for no other reason than to give pols political cover for their decision to lose to the war.

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend