Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
I agree with him with the contention that "because this is a war of choice, Americans will not support it unless it is relatively short and cheap. This is why the administration has changed its policy and accelerated the timetable to hand over increasing political responsibility to Iraqis, even if it means reducing what it is trying to accomplish."
|
Thank you, Sparhawk. This, we can discuss.
I feel that many Americans believe this is indeed a war of necessity. Certainly the majority of those who supported the war felt that way. And their level of resolve should not be so easily dismissed.
Why the "necessity?" Iraq did not attack us on our soil. And to those among us who believe that military action can only be justified through direct self defense this war will never be considered an act of necessity. A great many others, however, contend that this war was necessary to preserve our global security. They argue that war was necessary because all diplomatic means had been exhausted.
The UN, through the empty rhetoric of 16 resolutions over the course of 12 years, proved itself unwilling or unable to enforce the will of the international community. It became irrelevant. As a result of this irrelevance, perhaps even in direct response to its proven inability to act, other nations became emboldened, audacious, and belligerent.
The order that exists when strong leaders have the conviction and fortitude to defend free nations from the threat of attack by tyrannical megalomaniacs had been deteriorating rapidly. The order that exists when people have reason to believe that their actions have consequences, that their wrongdoings will not go unnoticed, that their threats, provocations, and attacks will be resisted, was evaporating.
When Saddam Hussein first attacked Kuwait, he was quickly and soundly defeated. The Gulf War sent a very powerful message to others who might have entertained the thought of invading weaker nations to increase their wealth and power. And for many years we lived a relative peace.
But we allowed the internal squabbling of the UN member nations to weaken our resolve. Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright specifically sought the avoidance of conflicts - not their resolution - no matter what the long-term costs. Saddam soon began to realize that without effective leadership among those who might resist him, he could get away with almost anything.
Others came to the same conclusion. 16 resolutions and 12 years and nothing had changed.
On September 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his followers sought to take advantage of our perceived apathy and weakness. That morning we learned that a couple of cave-dwelling half-wits dressed in rags actually believed they could destroy America. Now we stand to witness the escalating belligerence of Kim Jong-Il.
What have we learned from this?
Order can not exist when there is no one around to defend it and tyrants remain in power.
I, for one, am thankful that we finally have a leader who leads, a defender who defends, and a protector who protects.
I also believe the war in Iraq was necessary.
{Note to redravin - engaging the poster to offer some original thought and support his opinion is hardly trolling, OK?}