By Henry Lamb
Monday, February 19, 2007
On the Democrat side, the '08 presidential race appears to be a contest to see who can get the troops out of Iraq the quickest. Not a single candidate has said the first word about the consequences of removing U.S. troops. Do they not care what the consequences might be? Or, are they convinced that the American people don't care? The consequences of removing U.S. troops before the Iraqi forces can provide security for the new government will have impacts no American wants to contemplate.
Consider the people who are vying for control: on the one hand, the elected, but very shaky government that is trying to build new democratic institutions, build security forces, build an economy, and rebuild infrastructure either damaged in the war, or worn out from Saddam's neglect.
On the other hand, there is Al Qaeda in Iraq, the remnants of Saddam's Baath party, the Sunni and Shia religious sects, Hezzbolah, and the influence of Iran and Syria - all struggling for control.
Hillary, Obama, and the rest of the Democrat slate, seem to think that once the American forces are removed, these conflicting forces will fade into the woodwork, and all will be well in Iraq. Or, they don't care what happens in Iraq.
The left-leaning anti-war protesters who applaud the increasingly virulent anti-war rhetoric of the candidates, point to the daily reports of bombings in Baghdad, and the slaughter of innocent civilians as the primary reason to remove U.S. forces. Do these people think that the slaughter will end with the removal of U.S. troops?
Those seeking to overthrow the newly elected government, and control Iraq by force, have clearly demonstrated their contempt for human life. Women, children, and shopkeepers are nothing more than props to be exploded for their daily television production, designed especially to sicken the American audience.
Should these less-than-animal terrorists succeed in cowering the American public into forcing a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces, chaos in the streets of Baghdad, and across Iraq will intensify, for a while, leaving many more thousands of innocent victims in its wake. The prevailing force will not be an ally of the United States. Iraq will become the new retreat for terrorists. Iraq, with its oil riches, would become a new launching pad for the Islamic extremists to attack the U.S. and its allies.
Why will the Democrat candidates not address these consequences? Why will the media not ask these candidates to address this issue? Why will the American people not demand that each candidate address this issue?
But no. When the troops are withdrawn, to the cheers of the anti-war crowd, the same crowd will be the first to blame America for the slaughter in the streets of Baghdad, for leaving the new government defenseless. Apparently, Democrats, and their anti-war supporters, do not believe that the Al Qaeda, Islamofascist declaration of war on the U.S. is serious. Perhaps some still believe that the World Trade Centers attack was a George Bush trick to justify going to war. They just ignore the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, and the bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombing of the U.S. embassies, and the very long list of other attacks by these terrorists. Democrat presidential candidates appear to be concerned only about the number of votes that may be secured by pandering to the anti-war crowd. They seem unconcerned about the consequences of their position.
The consequences of prematurely withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq reach far beyond the Middle East. Around the world, the U.S. has pledged to defend other nations in exchange for economic and other political considerations. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, for example, are depending upon the U.S. for their defense. They see that the United States has repeatedly pledged to support and defend the newly elected government of Iraq. But when the Democrats took control, the solemn pledge of the United States became meaningless.
Should China attack Taiwan, what would a Democrat leader do? Should North Korea suddenly decide to invade South Korea - again; what would a Democrat leader do? Should the goofball president of Iran, or a new terrorist dictator of Iraq decide to attack Israel, what would a Democrat leader do? Just how reliable is the word of the United States Government? Apparently, the Democrat candidates for president in '08 don't care. They are racing to withdraw U.S. forces prematurely, to the applause of a segment of the American audience that doesn't seem to give a damn about the consequences.
There is a segment of Americans that care. They are sickened by the replay of the Vietnam era condemnation of America. These are the people who still believe in the U.S. Constitution, who still believe that the pledge of the American government is sacred; who believe that freedom is, indeed, worth defending, even at the cost of war, when necessary. These are the people who believe the Islamofascists are serious, and fully intend to destroy the United States. These are the people who will not be voting for candidates who disagree.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement