Exit Strategy ?
One of John Kerry’s criticisms of President Bush is his clam of no “exit strategy” in Iraq, and Bush has not responded to this charge. The reason for this is simple, the charge is as absurd as the concept of an “exit strategy“. This indicates to me that despite what Kerry claims to have learned in Vietnam, he has little understanding of how to conduct a war and as Commander in Chief, would be a miserable failure.
The objective that President Bush has set for Iraq is to establish a free and democratic sovereign nation where a brutal and suppressive dictatorship with weapons of mass destruction once existed. In John Kerry’s mind, the objective in Iraq is simply for us to get out.You will need an “exit strategy” only if you do not intend to win the war. President Bush intends to win the war. Where is John Kerry’s plan to win the war? Get France and other countries involved who have already made it quite clear they have no intentions of doing so no matter who is president? Kerry doesn’t understand that you don’t go into a war with the goal of getting out, you go in with the goal of reaching your objective and attaining a victory. Once that is completed, you can leave in peace and you don‘t need a strategy to do that. That objective has not yet been reached in Iraq and may not be for some time yet, but eventually it will be if we don’t give up and surrender as John Kerry would have us do, just as we did in Vietnam. How can Kerry say he would be a strong fighter of terrorism when he already has a plan to retreat and withdraw? Kerry learned one thing in Vietnam and that was how to surrender, and cut and run All Americans had to live with that shame for many year and we don’t want to go through that again, but that is exactly what Kerry has in mind for Iraq. He, and his liberal Democrats try to portray Iraq as another Vietnam and want to end it in the same way. Kerry is a defeatist and appeaser and doesn’t have the slightest idea of how to win a war strategically and with honor.
We developed an “exit strategy” in Vietnam that resulted in two million Vietnamese slaughtered and a shamed and defeated United States, thanks largely to John Kerry who says he‘s proud of what he did to our country. This would seem to be the same fate he wants in Iraq as well. Were he to become President, he would immediately begin initiating a plan to remove our troops from Iraq before the goal has been completed and giving the victory to the enemy. This, of course, would result in civil war and the overthrow of the new Iraqi government costing millions of Iraqi lives and the return of Iraq to an Islamic theocratic dictatorship and once again, shaming America, essentially the same thing that happened in Vietnam. It would be a huge step backwards in the war on terror and would assure that we would be fighting and loosing to terrorism for the next thirty years. If we do not win in Iraq, then we loose a major battle to the terrorists. Winning means seeing the completion of a Western friendly, free democratic government in Iraq that will endure. This oasis of democracy in the middle of the Islamic region is crucial to our winning the war against terrorists. We need a base in the middle of their territory to fight them there so that we don’t have to deal with them here on our soil. That is what Iraq has become and must remain. Kerry has made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign as his only accomplishment in life, and now wants to relive his disastrous Vietnam legacy in Iraq. Americans have to realize this and not let it happen again.
We didn’t go into Europe to fight the Germans with the expectation of leaving within a year or even five years. We went there with the expectation of winning the war no matter how long it took. We didn’t fight the Japanese in the Pacific with a time limit on how long we would stay and a plan to run away when time ran out, we were committed to fight until victory was achieved no matter how long that took. If you give the enemy the idea that you are in a rush to leave, then all they have to do is keep up the fight bit by bit and sit and wait for your departure, then come out and regain control of the country once you’re gone. This is exactly what is happening in Iraq and it started the day we went in there. The Saddam armies simply ran and hid to wait for us to leave so they could come out and take back control. When it became clear to the Islamic region that we were not going to simply leave after defeating Saddam, al Qaeda and Iran began sending in fighters to join with the Saddamites to try to run us out. The Bush Administration is working on a solution to this problem but it’s going to take some time and cooperation from the Iraqi Provisional Authority.
It’s true that we did not plan for this insurgency, no one could have predicted this would happen, but it’s better for us that it did even if it looks bad politically for President Bush. Our enemy is coming to us in Iraq so that we don’t have to go chasing after them all over the Middle East and elsewhere. We have a solid base there in Iraq from which to fight them and keep them away from American soil. When you have a cockroach infestation in your house, it’s better if you can attack them all in their nest instead of chasing after them one by one all over the house. Kill them all in one place and you’ll be rid of them allot sooner. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple with terrorists, but the idea still applies and Iraq tends to concentrate the war on terror in one place where we have some advantage and control. The problem with Democrats is that they do not see the war in Iraq as a battle in the War on Terror therefore, don‘t understand why we‘re there. They don’t understand that we are not taking punitive action against those responsible for 911, but rather we are taking preemptive action to prevent another 911 from happening again.
The big problem we face there now is the new Iraqi Provisional Government. Since the transfer of sovereignty last June, they are in charge and make the political decisions about how the war there is fought. If we are to respect their sovereignty, then we have to respect their right to call the shots and prevent us from using aggressive force to root out and eliminate the enemy. We no longer have a free hand to do what we want in Iraq. If we did, then we wouldn’t be having problems with people like al Sadr and places like Fallujah, we would have cleaned them out by now. When it comes to fighting and killing Iraqi resistance fighters, we want an Iraqi face on the attack so that we don’t appear to Islam as the over-aggressive enemy of Islam. We want to show the region that it is the Iraqis who are fighting the insurgents and we are just there to help. Herein lies the problem, Muslims are very reluctant to kill other Muslims and the new Iraqi troops have been known to run away from the fight rather than kill their brothers in religion. Every time we have them cornered and are set for the attack, the Iraqi government gets in the way and calls for more negotiations and in the end, the terrorists walk away with their weapons only to come back and attack another day.
This is the same problem we had with the United Nations before the war. They kept stalling and stalling, trying to prevent us from doing what we had to do and using the excuse of “more inspections” to keep us out of Iraq. Why did the UN take this position? Because Kofi Annan as well as many members of the UN are Muslims and don’t want to see Muslims attacked, not to mention the Oil for Food scandal and other corruption. We have a world policy body in the UN that is largely controlled by the very people who are attacking us so can we really depend on them or expect any support from them? Annan himself recently called the war in Iraq “illegal” and implied that our president is an international criminal. Watch for John Kerry to begin using this in his campaign as surely he will. Since the UN wasn’t going to sanction our invasion of Iraq under any circumstances, we defied them and did what had to be done in spite of them. So to Annan, it was an illegal action according to the UN Charter because it was done without UN approval. Would Kerry ever defy the UN if necessary? Of course not. Zell Miller was right when he said “Kerry would let Paris decide when the US needs defending”.
Every week now, we’re hearing more about the corruption between the UN, France, Germany, Russia, and China, and not only Saddam Hussein, but the Islamic dictatorship in Iran as well, involving nuclear weapons. Under UN supervision, proceeds from the “Oil for Food” program were going to buy weapons, not food for Iraq. The UN won’t even do anything about the genocide now taking place in Africa because of the Muslim politically correct problem, and expects, and soon to criticize America for not doing enough fast enough. That is supposed to be the job of the UN, not the United States. The UN has become totally useless in most major issues and is not on our side in world conflicts. If we are to get nothing but interference and obstructions from the UN, then our participation in that organization is not in the best interests of this country and we need to get out of the UN and get the UN out of our country. It would be better suited to a location in Paris. Of course this will never happen. Diplomacy must be maintained with other countries and the UN provides a forum for that dialogue. It’s clear now that discussion, not enforcement, is the only thing the UN is any good for. Anything beyond discussion involving military action will require independent action on the part of the US and our allies in a coalition of the willing. We can’t leave the defense of the United States in the hands of Muslim brothers of the very people who want to kill us. I don’t know how Kofi Annan became chairman of the UN but he needs to go, and be replaced by someone, perhaps Colin Powell, who has a better understanding of the terrorism problem this world faces and the will to deal with it.