I'll explain my stance, and then I have a question.
We've probably debated this subject more than any other on this forum over the past couple of years. I've maintained, and still do, that the war in Iraq was justified. Based on the evidence that we had, there was sufficient reason to invade Iraq. Democrats, Republicans and a majority of the American people agreed on that. I do not think that the Bush administration lied to get us to war. As I've argued many times in the past, if the Bush administration is guilty of lying to make its case on Iraq, the Democrats were also guilty since they controlled the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time that Congress approved the war, and since the Clinton administration was making the same case against Iraq just a few short years earlier.
The war itself was a thing of sheer awe. The speed with which we overthrew the Iraqi regime may exceed any other such overthrow in modern warfare. The aftermath of the initial combat phase, however, was very poorly mismanaged. I do not think that the president is necessarily to blame for that. But since he was in the White House, he must accept the blame.
Now we have the so-called "troop surge" in place. And many accounts from the boots on the ground are that it is working. But commanders and experts warn that its results will not be realized overnight. I'm continually troubled by the American news media's coverage of the war in Iraq. For example, a couple of weeks ago there was a report released to Congress by the White House that assessed 18 benchmarks that had been set forth in Iraq. It found that sufficient progress had been made on 8 of the 18 benchmarks, while insufficient progress had been made on 8 of the 18 benchmarks. Granted, I didn't read every news report about the report, but of those I did read, Fox News Channel was the only media outlet to make it clear that these benchmarks are security and political benchmarks set forth for the Iraqi government, NOT for American forces on the ground in Iraq. Most of the news reports only made mention of that fact deep into the story, or not at all if they were short news articles. And after reading the report for myself, I found that some of the important security benchmarks were among those judged as showing sufficient progress, while some of the less-important political benchmarks were among those judged as showing insufficient progress.
With that said, I have to wonder about an Iraqi parliament that has a deadline by which these benchmarks must be met, has a nation that is arguably on the brink of civil war, yet decides to take the month of August off because of the heat. And all the while our troops are beating the streets in full combat gear in an effort to flush out insurgents on THEIR behalf, so that the IRAQI PEOPLE may be more secure. The parliament's action is a slap in the face to our troops in Iraq and it makes me wonder just how much these people are really interested in a stable country.
I'm also growing weary of seeing more and more news accounts of American troops being killed by IEDs, roadside bombs and ambushes. For four years now, we've been fighting post-major combat operations and we've zero progress to show for it. We move into a town, secure the town, then move out and the Iraqi forces cannot hold it and the insurgents take it over once again. Clearly, the Iraqi forces are not prepared to hold their own country.
It's time to put up or shut up, in my opinion. The current debates in Congress are meaningless and juvenile, in my opinion, as are Senator Reid's slumber parties. Congress previously agreed on a September progress report, so let's wait until September for that progress report. That'll give the "surge" a couple more months to work. But when General Petreus testifies before Congress in September, if there isn't proof that the surge is working, and that identifiable progress will continue to be made, and made steadily, I'll have to join the growing majority of American people who are ready for American troops to pull out of Iraq. The consequences to us, long-term, will not be good, I'm afraid. We will have left an environment in Iraq that is unstable and more conducive to terrorism than what we started with. al Qaeda will find themselves a safe haven in Iraq similar to what they had in Afghanistan. The consequences to the Iraqi people, short-term, will be even greater. Folks in Iraq are finally becoming fed up with the barbarity of al Qaeda and starting to help American troops root out these terrorists. If we leave, we're leaving them subject to massacre just like we promised them and left them in Gulf War I, when Bush senior committed one of the greatest travesties of modern American government, in my opinion.
Still, if it ain't working, it ain't working. Count me among the impatient. I want to see clear proof of progress.
If you took the effort to read through all that, here is my question. And this is primarily for those who believe we should still be in Iraq. We've heard many times from those who think we should come home yesterday.
My question is this: At what point, or do you ever, say that the time has arrived for America to quit Iraq, come home, and let what happens happen?
I'm almost ready to say give it up in Iraq
