Do conservatives understand that ending our participation in Iraq does not end our fight on terror?

Question

President (oops I meant) Senator Obama says it best:
"We have no good options right now in Iraq," said Obama, calling for a phased deployment before the end of next year and a redeployment in Afghanistan where he said al-Qaida is regaining strength.


"We should have been hunting down bin Laden. It's been five years and I don't know why he's still rebuilding al-Qaida," Obama said, arguing that the country needs to rebuild its status in the world by making sure it's cooperating with other countries, by increasing the number of Arab linguists, and investing in homeland security.

"We can fight terrorism as aggressively as necessary and we can do it in a way that fosters global cooperation," said Obama.

I know the Bush administration finds this concept mind-boggling, but do conservative voters comprehend the idea of taking the war to the people actually responsible for 9/11, and that pulling out of Iraq is not equal to surrender?

infobroker: I do remember, I also remember that we "cut and ran" from Afghanistan into Iraq against expert advice. And yes I know there are a handful of troops there. But a meaningless number; not enough to effect any change and ertainly not enough to search and kill Bin Laden. Remember that guy?

Im seeing a trend here. Most of you have bought the "they will follow us home" rhetoric (A Bush invented ra! ra! ra! slogan not supported by any historical data or expert opinion). The best weapon against terrorism is not the army, it is intelligence. This is the consensus from the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

Answer 1

No. They don't. They don't understand that a hundred years if a pretty typically length for Religious Wars.

They don't understand that reinforcing failure is the fastest way to lose any war.

They don't understand about objectives. We won the the war in Iraq when we captured Sadam and verified the absence of WMD's. But Bush stayed anyway. Do the job and get out. That's how you preserve your military and keep it ready and available.

They don't understand about picking your battles, so that you get the biggest victory for the smallest price. That's how you win a long war.

They don't understand that Democracies tend to lose wars of attrition because we place a higher value on the lives of our citizens than fanatics and dictators do on theirs.

They don't understand that Victory is achieived not by how many people you kill or how much real estate you grab, but by breaking the enemy's will to fight before he breaks yours.

They don't understand that prolonged wars are won by building your production capacity, building alliances and only using force when and where it can be decisive.

They don't understand much about war at all. They think it's fun like in the movies that are their only real source of knowledge about war.

Chickenhawks aren't going to win this for us. Their idea of war is playing toy soldiers with real soldiers. We need real statesmen who can win the political victory and let the Generals win on the battlefield.

I'm not seeing anyone like that among the candidates. I had hopes for McCain, but he's sold out to the chickenhawks.

I guess we'll have to settle for Hilly. She's got no military experience, but she's got more balls than any of the men running in either party.

Answer 2

I am a conservative. So I guess that qualifies me to answer your question. I like your question. Yes, I understand. A simple answer, but not quite to the heart of the matter. From the tone of your post, you obviously oppose the war in Iraq. OK, I can respect that position. I myself am not sure it was the brightest idea our government (and in this I mean the Repubs and Dems) ever had (because whether some want to believe it or not, libs and conservs, donkeys and elephants... they all bought the line and sent the troops). SO... I am going to put aside the tiresome argument of should we be there based on what we were told we went there for... to fight terrorism. I like your question because it opens the debate on what we do now... I see it as, what are the pros and cons of a pull out in Iraq?

So, what are the pros... we pull our troops out of Iraq, they come home, we all feel good that the peace movement won, maybe we redeploy them elsewhere to fight terrorism... MAYBE. Am I missing anything here?

What are the cons... we pull our troops out of an unstable country and in an unstable region (yes we had a hand in making it so) creating more instablility, we loose a foothold in the region where (whether you want to believe it or not) we have great interests in seeing a successful democracy grow, a fast U.S. exit likely spark a furious Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq were more Iraqis die (we stand some chance of staving off or at least stemming all out civil war while the Iraqi government grows in strength if we stay put-- couldn't help commentate on that one), instability spreads across the region, with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey pulled into the vacuum of Islamic extremism bolstered by our pullout, a pullout would also give credence to Osama bin Laden's contention that, because America has no stomach for war casualties, the insurgents can prevail if they just keep drawing U.S. blood.

We simply cannot walk away. This is not to say that what we are doing now is working well. But to cut and run... I ask... do libs understand that - whether we went for good or ill we went, we broke it, now we have to help fix it? We cannot simply pull out because it's tough... we cannot bend to the short attention span and quick fix nature that our society is slanting towards. There is no "quick fix" in Iraq. Sorry folks, this one is going to take commitment, time, money, energy, and yes lives. War sucks. The aftermath of war often sucks even more. It would be oh so nice to wash our hands and walk away.

Answer 3

I can't believe the answers you have gotten. Republicans worried about Iraqis but could care less about health care for Americans. Hell, we're over there now and innocent people are being killed, what's the crap about sitting in front of your TV and watching the slaughter? I truly wonder about republicans at times. Four years of this fiasco and they still defend it like it is a raving success. Pull our troops out put them along our borders, secure our homeland, we can't secure Iraq. People on here think fighting terrorism means soldiers with guns, when in reality our troops are more targets than anything. We need a serious change in thinking because the President's strategy sure isn't working.

Answer 4

There is no "Fight on Terror" only a badly named and misguided fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Islamic Fundamentalist World has been in a nationless holy war against Israel and the USA since long before 9/11.
The sooner we wise up and begin terminating our enemies WHEREVER we find them the better.
Subarines did not sink the Lusitania - the Germans did
Warplanes did not attack Pearl Harbor - the Japanese did
"Terror" did not attack the USA on 9/11 - a seventh-century death-cult called, "Islam" did.
Let's start fighting back against the real enemy.
STOP HITLARY NOW!!!

Answer 5

I didn't know that Obama was running for presidency in France. If we leave an ally in its rebuilding and let another dictator slide in as we leave can you imagine the turmoil that would ensue in that part of the world? If the people get taken over and try to rebel against that we will have to go back in another 25-30 and find more mass burial sites.

Obama will not be president, guarantee that.

Answer 6

There were never any "good" options for the USA from the moment the first plane hit on 9/11. Bush and his administration have done what they've thought best. There is more going on here than the hunt for one man named bin Laden.

Answer 7

This one does. Do you understand that by capturing bin Laden that our participation in the war on terror will not end? Neither leaving Iraq nor killing Osama will end this engagement. I don't think a lot of the "what happened to bin Laden" crowd understand this simple fact.

Answer 8

Obama is a piece of poop. He couldn't even continue to thank the troops on his way out of the wounded vet hospital in DC. Probably cause the camera was off. So why would he look at some troops that where sacrificed to create a Terrorist state of Iraq. Their where slim chances any terror groups where in Iraq during Saddams reign. Think of all the boxes of bodies parts and ID's that were found when we liberated that country. He liked control so chances are nill.

Answer 9

If you say the best weapon against terrorism is the consensus from the FBI, CIA, why do most liberals seek to weaken their ability to perform intelligence operations and interrogate potential informants? It would seem to me that your cronies may be talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Answer 10

So we give up in Iraq becaue you fail to see the big picture? Isn't giving up kind of like surendering?
the problem is that you don't think the job is worth doing so why doit right. Other people happen to think the job is worth doing and if a job is worth doing it's worth doing right.
What the bush administration might actually find mind boggling is you complete lack of understanding of the world, which I should add is quite evident.