The Gop say to withdraw is to to lose the war in Iraq.
The Dems say its already lost and we should withdraw to save lives.
I say, let's change the debate. Our troops have met all goals Bush asked of them. We have won. It's time to move on and let what we started grow on its own. To remain much longer only puts our troops and our country at MORE RISK!
I don't understand how anyone can say we have lost in Iraq. Let's look at what Bush has said he wanted to accomplish.
a)Saddam Hussein is dead. His sons are dead. His regime is dead.
b)We have verified the are no WMD's
c)They have a gov't elected by the Iraqi people
d)They have a constitution duly ratified by the elected representatives
e)They an army and police forces.
Bush's position is that we must stay to reinforce an inadequate army and police force. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING!
The reason we are there is to ensure that an anti-american group will not take control of the gov't and oil production in Iraq.
George has accomplished his mission of removing Saddam. Dick is accomplishing his mission of making money.
There have been consistent reports of more and more local area militias succeeding in rooting out and removing foreign terrorists where American forces could not succeed.
I say we have accomplished what we initially set out to accomplish. To say we are withdrawing prematurely is a ridiculous premise. Why should we believe the Bush propaganda? It's not like they have lied to the American people about every issue they have championed, every action they have taken. They say one thing and then go do exactly as they please. Why should we embrace this silly notion that to bring our troops home now is to suffer a defeat.
I say to stay and continue to lose lives is to suffer defeat. We should not be goaded into staying in an area longer than we either need to be there or are wanted there. The only people that want us to remain in Iraq are the Bushies and Al Qaeda.
If Congress can read and has any intelligence, they would see that the way out of this mess is to change the debate. If both sides would adopt the attitude that we have won and that the only reason that we should still be there is to leave a smaller force behind to supervise the continued training of Iraqi army and/or police. US Military troops should no longer be doing these jobs. They can have naval and air force backup in the event that the need to strike militarily becomes warranted.
Ever notice, when they start a war they use air force and navy to bomb the enemy before they bring in the troops? Well the troops have done their jobs and now is the time to use the same Air Force and Naval forces to back up the Iraqi military from afar. This redeployment of troops would serve us well as we need to redeploy our ground troops to Afghanistan before winter and before the Taliban regains its 9/11 strength in the region.
This is a reasonable position for both sides to take. So let's change the debate. Bush's position is if we leave we lose. The people's position should be we have already won and to remain longer than needed is counter-productive to our goals in the region. When we change the debate, we realize that we can come together as a country and be a shining example to the world that this is a gov't that at least for the time being is for and by the people. Bush, being the arrogant son of a gun that he is, will never relinquish he postion even though in the end it will be the losing postion.