AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Well, you can start with the 9/11 Commission Report. Then, you can go be the admission of the Administration that there were no WMDs (and please note the date of the article, in which Bush acknowledged no WMDs) and the admission that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (from the White House Press Office, by the way). Since 9/11 was the work of al-Qa’ida, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it means that Iraq did not have ties to al-Qa’ida. Finally – or rather, further, since there is far more evidence – every single senior member of Saddam’s inner circle has denied any ties between Iraq and al-Qa’ida, and when they had nothing to gain by saying “yes” or “no”; i.e., no reason to lie.
Actually, I agreed that our technology would, in that instance, serve us well and we would prevail. But that’s not my concern. My concern is this:
That’s where I disagree. We cannot adequately police Iraq now with the number of troops we have. If we have to divert a significant number to battle a new front, things will dissolve into total chaos, and we will have taken a step back that would take possibly decades to resolve. It is at that point that the tribal difference would split Iraq open possibly beyond any hope of a unified government.
But by that logic, we should be invading Iran, Syria, North Korea – all of which pose actual threats to the U.S. Provoked? No – Bush and Cheney had the ridiculous notion that they could impose democracy through regime change – something that has never occurred in the history of the world. And they picked perhaps the worst Middle East country in which to play their stupid game – a country that for 5,000 years has consisted of three tribes that are at constant war with each other.
Bear in mind, also, that the “provocation” was the failure to allow weapons inspectors in, correct? But go back and review the sequence of events – the weapons inspectors were on the cusp of demonstrating that there were no WMDs when Bush asked Congress to declare war. The inspectors begged the administration for a few more weeks - all that they needed to confirm the lack of WMDs already known to the administration - and they were rejected.
We were not provoked – we were duped by Bush. And now more than 2,500 American lives have been lost, and countless others shattered by disfiguring and disabling injuries. All for nothing.
Defending our country by strengthening our borders and our intelligence is a far more effective method of protection. The attacks of al-Qa’ida are the only ones in which we have suffered loss of American lives from suicide bombers. But at this time in Iraq, the vast majority of the violence is sectarian violence, and not from al-Qa’ida – a fact admitted by both the administration and the military command. Removing ourselves from Iraq at this point does not “empower” al-Qa’ida; it empowers the sectarian sects. We’ve given them their freedom – let them decide whether they will revert to barbarism or emerge as a legitimate society.
That’s true – Congress can determine the number of enlistments. However, what I’m talking about is the fact that the number of possible enlistments greatly exceeds the number of actual recruits. The reason is that the number of individuals that are signing up has dropped dramatically. I can’t recall the last quote, but I seem to recall that the Army’s recruitment was off by 30% - with no hope of increasing.
It doesn’t matter what levels of enlistment Congress sets if the number of actual signings doesn’t meet that quota – the only alternative is a draft.
