Quote:
Originally Posted by myboynoah
(Post 76650)
|
I am so tired of this "one choice" rhetoric. It simply isn't true. We have many choices, it is just that none of them are remotely good.
Things are awful in Iraq (and let us not forget the reasons why and hold those responsible for the current situtation). But is our presence there helping? Hard to see how. We supported Al-Sadr, who is now controlling enormous parts of the country and is going to be nearly impossible to remove. We dismantled the military upon arrival, leaving the country without any enforcement officers in the streets. We are currently protecting the Shiites, the group that most wants us destroyed. We are incredibly unpopular in the region and among the people in Iraq. They want us to leave.
So, are we to come to the conclusion that we have to stay? Hardly. There are persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue, contrary to the "clear cut" language of Lieberman and others.
What happens if we do stay? We continue to protect the Shiites to our own detriment and to the region's detriment. Our troops continue to be killed in the process. The Iraqi public continues to grow more enraged with the American occupation of Iraq. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites continues to slowly escalate towards a full-blown civil war, leaving millions dead and huge instability in the region as Iran and Saudi Arabia grow increasingly involved. We continue to operate without any actual plan (according to our own generals). Eventually we have to leave anyways, but not until we have suffered many more casualties unnecessarily.
If we leave? Civil war, millions dead, huge instability in the region.
Both staying and leaving result in the same problem, absent a dramatic shift in our policy (and even that may not be sufficient).
What I find so amusing in all of this (in a tragic sort of way) is that those who claim we have to stay make the claim that this is one of the most critical moments in our history. They say this is vital to the very survival of our nation. They say our very freedom is at stake. And their solution? 10,000 more troops! WOW! 10,000! Victory is here!!!
The use of a mere 10,000 troops signals to me that they don't actually believe what they are saying. If our very freedom hinged on this decision, why not send in the full force and power of the US military? Isn't that what it is for? Send in 350,000 troops. Start a draft. Demand sacrifice from all levels of the American population.