LiquidFork
06-04-2008, 04:30 PM
“In the end, how we leave [Iraq] and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.” (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in_the_end_how_we_leave_iraq_and_what_we_leave_beh ind_will_be_more_importan/)
Fouad Ajami (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=rss_opinion_main):
Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: “In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.”
It is odd, then, that critics have launched a new attack on the origins of the war at precisely the time a new order in Iraq is taking hold.
Read the whole thing.
Over the course years and years of writing about Iraq and debating the subject with my readers I’ve come to this conclusion: Continuing to debate about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good idea is pointless.
In terms of Iraq policy, whether or not the war in Iraq was sound foreign policy or a “war of aggression” for “profit” and “oil” is a pointless debate. We’re in Iraq now, and so the question is no longer “should we invade” or “should we have invaded” but rather “what are we going to do now that we’re there.” I believe the soldiers and families of soldiers currently serving,could care less about if we should be there in the first place.They are more concerned with what we are doing now to bring them home safely.
The best answer to that - especially in light of the giant-strides we’ve made toward winning the peace in Iraq and fomenting progress toward a unified Iraqi government - is “finish the mission.” What’s disturbing about the liberal left, up to and including their recently self-appointed Presidential nominee Barack Obama, is that not only do they oppose finishing the mission in Iraq they also oppose even debating the question of whether or not we should finish the mission.
They’d much rather continue debating the pointless “should we have invaded” question. Because that debate, in light of all the aforementioned progress in Iraq, is much more politically convenient for them.
I believe there may be misdeeds and false motives for entering Iraq. Instead of debating,lets worry about whats going on NOW,and at the same time look for some sort of justice for those who are in fact guilty of these possible crimes. Pissing and moaning about if we should even be there doesn't benefit anyone.
Fouad Ajami (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=rss_opinion_main):
Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: “In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.”
It is odd, then, that critics have launched a new attack on the origins of the war at precisely the time a new order in Iraq is taking hold.
Read the whole thing.
Over the course years and years of writing about Iraq and debating the subject with my readers I’ve come to this conclusion: Continuing to debate about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good idea is pointless.
In terms of Iraq policy, whether or not the war in Iraq was sound foreign policy or a “war of aggression” for “profit” and “oil” is a pointless debate. We’re in Iraq now, and so the question is no longer “should we invade” or “should we have invaded” but rather “what are we going to do now that we’re there.” I believe the soldiers and families of soldiers currently serving,could care less about if we should be there in the first place.They are more concerned with what we are doing now to bring them home safely.
The best answer to that - especially in light of the giant-strides we’ve made toward winning the peace in Iraq and fomenting progress toward a unified Iraqi government - is “finish the mission.” What’s disturbing about the liberal left, up to and including their recently self-appointed Presidential nominee Barack Obama, is that not only do they oppose finishing the mission in Iraq they also oppose even debating the question of whether or not we should finish the mission.
They’d much rather continue debating the pointless “should we have invaded” question. Because that debate, in light of all the aforementioned progress in Iraq, is much more politically convenient for them.
I believe there may be misdeeds and false motives for entering Iraq. Instead of debating,lets worry about whats going on NOW,and at the same time look for some sort of justice for those who are in fact guilty of these possible crimes. Pissing and moaning about if we should even be there doesn't benefit anyone.