If we had the political will; when we sent soldiers into battle, we would allow them to do their job unrestrained. The last man out of the sandbox would pull up the flag, and we'd be done with it. We wouldn't be discussing premature withdrawal. We wouldn't discussing withdrawal in phases, so that our strength gets progressively weaker, and our posture becomes defensive. We wouldn't give Korans to Guantanamo inmates; we wouldn't entertain giving them Constitutional rights. We wouldn't sentence traitors like Ariel Weinman, who tried to sell Tomahawk Cruise Missile technology to an "unnamed" country to only twelve years in prison, with parole possible in four. We wouldn't prosecute Marines for murder, and we would have killed Muqtada al Sadr with a hellfire missile when we should have, over 2 years ago.
Life on Earth constantly exhibits an abundance of paradox. With the release of the Iraq Study Group Report, the picture becomes clearer, yet the waters are muddied simultaneously.
In my previous column, we discussed logic, which is one of the pillars upon which our society must be built. Another of those pillars is mathematics; whether how many immigrants --legal or otherwise-- this country can absorb, or how many troops to send to Iraq.
Despite all of the rhetoric and hand-wringing over what to do in Iraq; when you look at the whole equation using mathematics and logic, it always comes down to the lowest common denominator.
This is not difficult in theory. It is difficult in practice, only because we make it so.
In a previous assessment
of the insurgency that didn't get much as much publicity as the December report, the Iraq Study Group concluded that unless America exhibited the political will to defeat the enemy, the effort would fail.
Despite the shortcomings of the Group's latest report on the way forward, many of their conclusions ring true. Our biggest obstacle is that we lack the collective political will to defeat this enemy. There are many that would bristle at this characterization, but prove me wrong.
If we had the political will; when we sent soldiers into battle, we would allow them to do their job unrestrained. The last man out of the sandbox would pull up the flag, and we'd be done with it.
We wouldn't be discussing premature withdrawal.
We wouldn't discussing withdrawal in phases, so that our strength gets progressively weaker, and our posture becomes defensive.
We wouldn't give Korans to Guantanamo inmates.
We wouldn't entertain giving them Constitutional rights.
We wouldn't sentence traitors like Ariel Weinman, who tried to sell Tomahawk Cruise Missile technology to an "unnamed" country to only twelve years in prison, with parole possible in four.
We wouldn't prosecute Marines for murder, and we would have killed Muqtada al Sadr with a hellfire missile when we should have, over 2 years ago.
There are only two real choices we have; keep our troops there, or pull them out. If we pull them out, the only question remaining is will it be a precipitous, speedy withdrawal, or one that --as Democrats coined-- is "phased"?
Phased withdrawal, phased redeployment, whatever you call it is an absurd proposition; our forces should either stay because they're committed to a fight, or you get them out. All of them.
This fundamental lack of understanding of the proper application of military force, not only by the President, but by the majority of Democrats in both the House an Senate, as well as many Republicans is frightening.
We have put ourselves in a position to be seen by the majority of Iraqis as occupiers. We invaded a sovereign nation, toppled it's leader and helped bring about the free election of a new government.
Our President and his Administration failed to take into account for the religious, ethnic, and tribal rivalries that have gone on for centuries, and we've turned Iraqis into squabbling children (notwithstanding the fact they're killing each other), incapable of solving their differences, at least in the near term.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani feels that the Study Group's recommendations are bad for Iraq because a beefed up American program of training Iraqi troops to fight terrorists, so we can leave will somehow impede their sovereignty.
300 or more dead per month is pretty bad for Iraq too, don't you think? If something isn't done soon, there won't be any subjects to exercise any sovereignty over. His entire statement should be dismissed as political posturing, and is good for neither country.
Looking at the whole picture, we are left with two only two options. Stay and take full control, defeat the terrorists, or go home. Hundreds are already killed weekly at this point. House to house fighting would probably kill fewer than the "sectarian violence" that is consuming the country. It can't get any worse.
We have nothing to lose at this point. There was more factional violence teetering on civil war in Palestinian territories today, as well as mass demonstrations in Lebanon by supporters of Hezbollah, and admonitions from Saudi Arabia that the whole region is a powderkeg with many trying to light the fuse.
We are not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with itself.
It's extremist vs. moderate, and the extremists are kickin' butt and takin' names. They are better able to project the anger of the masses at the Jews and the Crusader Americans because of the smut peddled by Brintey Spears, Paris Hilton, and Nicole Ritchie. Or they take comfort in the opinions of Gwyneth Paltrow, Mel Gibson, or Natalie Maines, who feel compelled to use the camera to shove their foreign policy opinions down your throat.
There will always be political options for Iraq. Militarily, there are two options, and no room for negotiation at this point.
Stay and let our men finish the job, despite the political ramifications; or pack them up and send them home, deal with far worse political ramifications, and the possibility of more military action or Iraqi-based terrorist attacks in the future. These are the only options.
Jayme Evans is a veteran of the United States Navy, a military analyst, conservative opinion columnist, and an advocate for disabled and other veterans. He has served for many years as a Subject Matter Expert specializing in the testing of systems software for numerous major US organizations. He has extensively studied amateur astronomy and metallurgy, as well as military and US history. His brutally honest, in-your-face political commentary has been published in many west coast newspapers, and he is a regular contributing columnist to a multitude of internet sites, including WebCommentary.com, The Conservative Voice, and Conservative Crusader. Mr. Evans has also written guest editorials for Military Magazine, and he has been a frequent guest columnist on WorldNetDaily, writing about legislative and veteran's issues.