That is what the left will never concede. If we get a "Kerry," we will "Pancho Villa" the war on terror, and guit trying to drain the ME swamp.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this, and I don’t think it’s by any means clear whether we are draining the swamp or just mucking around in it. I don’t personally support a bailout from Iraq at this point: I never liked the way we went into it, and I think it’s a better than 50/50 chance that it will spin out of our control and end up being a major problem. Now that we’ve done it, though, we’ve little option but to stay the course, at least until the Iraqis ask us to leave. For better or worse, I suspect that this will happen sooner, rather than later.
What I was saying in the first place was that it is pretty low – aside from being grossly inaccurate – to suggest that anyone not in favor of the Iraq war is or was “opposed to the war on terror”.
Islam will see that we have quit again. I think that increases the odds of a major Nuke attack sometime in the future.
If an elected Iraqi government tells us to remove our troops, and we do, would that be quitting? If an elected Iraqi government tells us to remove our troops, and we don’t, what would that be?
I think our problems in Iraq are just beginning. The insurgency is a sideshow: the real issues are going to start when we go into the process of trying to develop an Iraqi government with real power. Our ability to control this process will – and should be – limited, and the negative outcomes are at least as likely as the positive ones. |
