War
We should declare victory in Iraq and give the Iraqi people a short time period to secure their freedom before we pull out of combat. Yet we should maintain a base there for now in case we need it to take out the next dictator more easily or to fight Iran. We should move troops to the Afghan Pakistan border and start to gas and seal caves and cut off movement of our enemies there. We should do whatever it takes to kill or capture all those involved in Al Qaeda. But we should note that war is hell and like in WWII when entire cities were bombed to destroy infrastructure and demoralize enemy populations, the same may be necessary today.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were both conducted with the most honorable of intentions, and those service men and women doing the fighting are indeed the heroes to whom we owe our freedom.
However, to think that the Iraqis and the afghans would be similar following their defeat to the Germans and Japanese following WWII was a silly concept, pulled from the minds of politicians instead of soldiers. The two countries are different issues so I will address them separately.
Iraq:We were entirely justified in taking out Saddam and his brutal band of thugs given his repeated violations of the ceasefire from the first gulf war and his ongoing support of terrorism. No one in the Bush administration claimed there was any link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack on the USA. How the kooks still get by painting that picture is clearly a matter or leftist media support and the pop mythology that the republicans and the Bush family are somehow conservative. But Saddam was clearly and openly giving assistance to a number or terrorist orgs, most notably the so-called “Palestinians” who use suicide bomb murders as a tactic. As for his weapons of mass destruction, there is no doubt that he had them. We know this because we sold them to him when he was at war with Iran. And he had used some against his own slaves, which eventually led to his execution.
However it is not clear at all that we or anyone else can stabilize Iraq. The conflict between insane fanatic superstitious elements predates modern civilization by many centuries, and it was only the brutal repression by thugs like Saddam who kept open warfare that we see now suppressed. So how far should be attempt to involve ourselves in bringing civilization to the middle east? I think we’d be better off simply taking out the dictators as soon as they become a threat to other countries and civilized people or start to acquire weapons which they could use to inflict major harm on people in civilized nations. If the people of Iraq want freedom, they have to get off their butts and earn it with their own blood. If they don’t care about their own freedom, neither should we. We can snuff out the likes of Saddam and terrorist camps without trying to govern the cesspools.
By the way, while we are on the subject. Those who claim to want freedom and “democracy” and self determination for the so-called “Palestinians” should ask themselves where in the middle east the arab people have the right to vote, or any rights at all. The one country where that is the case happens to be Israel. If the Israelis had lost the war in 1948 or in 1967, and ceased to exist, would the so-called “Palestinians” have any rights today? Or would they be slaves to dictators like their brothers in Syria or Iran?
Afghanistan:We had and have every reason to take the country and impose our will in creating a civilized government. In that regard it is similar to post war Japan. But that’s where the similarity ends. The Japanese people followed an emperor who had surrendered and they pretty much gave up with him. There were few who sought to keep fighting. It was the same in Germany, there was simply nothing left to fight for, the cause was lost and everyone knew it. Besides, both Germany and Japan were 20th century civilizations with some sense of morals even if both behaved as savages in some aspects during the war. In the middle east, we are dealing with tyrannical 12th century savages with modern tools and with fanatical followers who want to die for a cause they see as attainable without regard to any government’s survival.
The point is that we have to learn from history and either do what it takes to achieve the goals or choose not to attempt certain goals. We might well have to eliminate Islam in order to civilize the middle east. Many centuries ago, that’s how religions expanded. Christianity and Islam both became relevant by conquering territory and killing all those who refused to convert. It was only due to distance that Christianity was forced to civilize as those further from Rome were able to exercise greater independence and thus able to question the authority of the church leadership which in time forced the church to give up power. But in the modern world, there is no distance as air travel and electronic communication has shrunk the globe so that slaves far away can still be monitored and controlled. Will the civilized world eventually have to declare war on a religion in order to eliminate the threats? Only time will tell, but that may turn out to be the case. And we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to do what we have to in order to win should that happen.