Response to a comment

Manual Goldenshower (obviously an alias ) left this comment concerning my posting on Monday, November 6th:

"Dave, do you seriously believe that letting the terrorits (sic) take Iraq will bring peace? Of course you don't. So what is your REAL reason for being willing to let them have Iraq?"

Because the comment was left anonymously, I have no means of engaging in a dialogue with 'Manual' other than by another post.

I have examined my earlier post and nowhere in it have I found any assertion or expression that "letting the terrorists take Iraq" will bring peace. 'Manual', you apparently feel that the only acceptable outcome from our leaving Iraq should be a state of peace, as when a war is concluded. Perhaps, this is why you assumed that I also held such a belief. Let me instead ask you a question: Do you believe that a victory in Iraq will end the peril from Islamic terrorism? Of course, you don't. So what is the real reason for our being in Iraq?

Some say, "Oil". Perhaps. Reportedly, they have a lot of it. But, our leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) have denied that oil was the reason for invading Iraq. And, apparently it wasn't, because the Iraqi Islamist's insurgency has kept oil from being a source of funding the reconstruction of Iraq, just like their executions of construction workers have frustrated rebuilding.

Others say, "WMD". Well, that didn't pan out. Many said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we invaded. And, guess what: there were none. So, apparently it wasn't WMDs that justified the invasion or our remaining there. Although, I've heard it, "Yes, they were there." Sure, Saddam had chemcial and biological agents and he looked at the possibility of becoming a nuclear power (which third world dictator hasn't?), but by the time we got there, the WMDs were not to be found. Perhaps, they were moved to Syria or Iran. So, why haven't we invaded those countries, if getting rid of the WMDs was so important?

Yet, others, say we did it to spread democracy, to give democracy a toe-hold in the Middle East, so it would flourish and spread, thus changing the hearts and minds of Islamists who seek our annilihation. Frankly, I don't care a whit if the Iraqis have democracy. Discussion of the idea of a democratic Iraq is another issue altogether. Their culture doesn't seem to support it. Islam doesn't even support nationalism. At the same time we are supposedly bestowing the benefits of democratic government, we are busy training the Iraqi army to be an effective modern fighting force. I must ask, to what end or purpose? Will the Iraqi army be our ally in the invasion of Iran and Syria? Of course not. Will the Iraqi army be our ally in fighting the Islamists? Don't count on it. Will it be to provide internal security, like Saddam's Republican Guard, for Iraqi's next dictator? Could be!

It seems clear to me that, short of an unthinkable genocide of the Iraqi population, the situation in Iraq cannot be resolved with a victory.

There have been other reasons for our being in Iraq offered by various people. Even today, Bush at a press conference said we are in Iraq to bring the terrorists to justice. If he's referring to the 9/11 terrorists aboard the planes, there dead. If he's referring to Bin Laden, he's in hiding.
Whatever the reason, the fact is we are there and should not be. That's the real problem and those that got us there have no plan to get us out, short of just picking up and leaving, which is a door they have nailed shut.

So, 'Manual', my REAL reason for being willing, as you put it, to let the terrorists have Iraq: We don't have it, aren't willing to prosecute the war in a way that will win, and have no other options. My best advice is to read a book by Sam Harris, The End of Faith, particularly Chapter 4, The Problem with Islam. It should give you some insight into the problem with being in Iraq.