There’s dissension in the ranks today, as DEMOCRATIC Congressman Brian Baird writes this op-ed piece in the Seattle Times. I write this today as a counterbalance to a report in the Washington Post that Senator John Warner is calling for President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from
The main premise is this: we live in a topsy-turvy world when a Democrat issues a call to maintain our hefty presence in
“The invasion of
“As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe
“I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.”
But we must take issue with the Congressman’s statement above. Our military consists of the most proficient, highly-trained, VOLUNTEERS in the nation. Granted, I have never served, so I cannot speak to the suffering families nationwide experience when a loved one is gone for a significant period of time, often two to three times. With that said, any invocation to previous conflicts, notably
Regarding the Iraqi people, many have shown considerable fortitude in the face of endless suicide bombings, sectarian violence, and targeted killings. Yet, the government has failed to hold up its end of the bargain and should be held accountable.
And yes, we have spent an exorbitant amount of money. Any call for withdraw based purely on economic factors may carry some weight. Our country is bankrupt; the Fed prints money as if it were merely Monopoly money. That is the only reason that SHOULD be considered. Any arguments that we are creating more terrorists due to our presence in the region, or that we invaded for oil should IMMEDIATELY be disregarded.
“It is just not realistic to expect
Note the Congressman’s statement below. When invading
“Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.”
Therein lays the crux of the argument. Note the points above:
- Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing/killing high priority targets on a daily basis.
- Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas.
- The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories.
- Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again.
- The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.
“From a strategic perspective, if we leave now,
We have rightfully castigated the Left for pushing for immediate or precipitous troop withdrawal. Regarding the statement above, the Democratic Congressman seems to understand the ramifications of the resulting vacuum.
So tell, those who oppose the surge…why should we remove our presence?
crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative