The United States invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and search for banned weapons. Hussein is now deposed, and no banned weapons were present. So why don't we leave?Just as the shooting of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the cause of World War I, but not the reason, the two motives cited by Easterbrook were the cause, but not the true reason for the necessity of invading Iraq. As much as the Democrats want to deny that Iraq was linked to 9/11, the invasion of Iraq was undoubtedly linked to those attacks. The invasion of Iraq was necessary as the first step of "draining the swamp" of Arab tyranny, backwardness, and violence. Leaving now would assure that Iraq reverts to the old model of Arab governance and the Arab world continues to be a breeding ground of terrorism. Along this line, putting 150,000 US troops in the center of the Arab world has put pressure on other Arab governments to reform. Leaving now would kill any possibility that the reformers in the Arab world could gain a foothold.
Easterbrook continues from his initial flawed assumption to more flawed assumptions
But we're going to leave Iraq at some point; departure is inevitable. We should leave before yet more damage is done.US troops have been in Europe for over 60 years since the end of World War II. If we adopt Norman Podhoretz's argument that the crisis facing the world should be conceptualized as World War IV, why can't US troops remain in the region just as long? Should US troops have left Europe after 2 years "before more damage [was] done"?
Easterbrook then makes the standard leftist comparison of Iraq to VietNam. I think this has been analyzed enough to not have to once again demonstrate the inaccuracy on that comparison.
The reason we can't leave Iraq is because our goals have not been accomplished; and won't be accomplished until the Arab world catches up to the rest of the world in consensual government. Undoubtedly this will take a long time, but the ultimate goal is surely worth the trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment