The continued drive by many on the left and in the media to bring about an American retreat in Iraq has given rise to a whole gamut of emotions in me over the past few months, ranging from bewilderment and frustration to anger. The shortsightedness and lack of vision in people like Barack Obama and many in the media lead one to question their intelligence, their motives and their patriotism. Let us not forget, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not started on the whims of a war-president. America was forced into taking up the fight against Islamic extremism and those who sponsored world-wide terror by the acts of her enemies – a fight that the United States should have begun many years earlier.
It is refreshing to read journalists such as Christopher Hitchens continuing to provide an untainted, ‘un-anti-American” (clearly far removed from the daily offerings of many in the American media) view on the necessity of the war against Islamic extremism and the success of the troops.
Hitchens’ latest article, The War Between the Wars, at Slate.com argues that we should be fighting Islamic extremism wherever it is in the world and that America and its allies are capable of taking on its enemies at more that one place at a time. It is Hitchens at his best and I only hope McCain and his team can stick to their guns on this issue and remind the American public of the serious consequences of Obama’s plan to run with our tails between our legs.
I like Hitchens’ argument against Obama’s and the left in general that two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) cannot be fought at once… (I have put some choice words in bold)
“…any attempt to play off the two wars against each other is little more than a small-minded and zero-sum exercise. And consider the implications. Most people appear now to believe that it is quite wrong to mention Saddam Hussein even in the same breath as either a) weapons of mass destruction or b) state-sponsored terrorism. I happen to disagree, but just for an experiment, let us imagine that some regime did exist or did arise that posed such a combination of threats. (Actually, so feverish is my imagination that I can even think of one whose name also begins with I.) Would we be bound to say, in public and in advance, that the Western alliance couldn’t get around to confronting such a threat until it had Afghanistan well under control? This would be rather like the equivalent fallacy that nothing can be done in the region until there is a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute. Not only does this mean that every rogue in the region can reset his timeline until one of the world’s oldest and most intractable quarrels is settled, it also means that every rogue has an incentive to make certain that no such settlement can ever occur. (Which is, of course, why Saddam threw, and now the Iranians throw, their support to the suicide-murderers.) ”
Maybe Obama should take note of the following before he provides more comfort to our foes with his plans…
“If it is true, as yesterday’s three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that “U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan,” then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. ”
“If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates.”
Hitchens finishes his above-quoted conclusion with these words of warning for the left and Obama…
“Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about “the hunt for the real enemy” or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.”
Unfortunately, Obama and his fans fail to see the significance of this fight against Islamic extremism. The significance for the future of our civilisation. Obama sees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan as part of his political game. They are much more important than that.
McCain has always said he puts America first, before his own individual success. This has been clear from his outstanding career where integrity, honesty and loyalty were the foundation of his life. America has to remember this come election day.
Glib remarks from Obama that give his followers a superficial ‘warm fuzzy’ will come back haunt Americans should they choose to elect him – at no time will this be more haunting than when our troops are retreating and the enemy is celebrating on the streets of the cities in Iraq (assuming Obama sticks to his promise of surrendering in 16 months – he is already showing signs of the liberal flip-flop, so who knows?).