Many people doubt the ability of the United States to obtain victory in Iraq. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even said that the surge is a failure, in all respects, despite evidence to the contrary. Of course winning in Iraq would subject the Democrats to ridicule for their current stance against the war in Iraq. Is it really important for us to win?
Our enemies were emboldened enough by our previous reactions to attacks to finally bring the war to our shores. Anyone that takes an objective look at the last twenty years can only conclude that the United States had no resolve for pursuing our enemies beyond the traditional law enforcement model of containment, which dismally failed in preventing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Osama Bin Laden calculated that the United States would not retaliate with any real force for the September 11th attacks. However, President George W. Bush surprised Bin Laden with United States military aggression into Afghanistan, a terrorist stronghold. The United States was able to accomplish in a very short time what the Russians were unable to accomplish in ten years, and that is to secure Afghanistan militarily. Yes, there is a resurgence by the Taliban, but they no longer present as formidable an opponent as before.
While historians will debate the need for the invasion of Iraq for many more years, one thing is clear. We are there, and we must leave with victory. Iraq has acted as a magnet for jihadists, and there they fall, far from our shores. But why has it taken so long to get a foothold in Victory?
Primarily the United States won World War II by bombing Japan and Germany into submission for peace. Cities in both countries were leveled with incendiary bombs, and of course with Japan, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, there were many civilian deaths. But these deaths were not referred to as "collateral damage". Since World War II, the United States has adopted a different strategy for warfare that minimizes civilian casualties. We gained a stalemate in Korea, a loss in Vietnam, and a tentative win in Afghanistan, but in Iraq nobody is ready to declare victory.
If my house is infested with roaches I could just go around and kill the ones I see. That is akin to the Clinton response to terrorist attacks during his Administration. Or, I could spray one room in my house, which is akin to the Bush response to the attacks of 9/11. But, if I really want to get rid of the infestation I must ensure that all of the roaches are killed. There is an area of land that rests between Afghanistan and Pakistan (on the Pakistani side of the border) where we highly suspect Bin Laden is hiding. Why have we not annihilated this region? I know, women and children would die. This mentality will prevent clear victory. We must remind ourselves that those jihadists out there today were borne from women. We must remind ourselves that those children will be indoctrinated by their parents and religious leaders into the jihadists ways. We must remind ourselves that to defeat the enemy we must eradicate the source. Sound radical? Well, remember that when Joshua was told by God to kill every man, woman, child, and animal upon the Israelites entry into Canaan that Joshua failed to carry out this commandment. Israel has suffered ever since. There was wisdom in God's plan then, and there is wisdom in that same plan thousands of years later.
One last point. It amazes me that the same people that advocate withdrawal are probably the same people that would cheer a losing football team down to the last minute of a game, refusing to leave the stadium, however, when it comes to something that really matters, such as victory in Iraq, they are more than willing to throw in the towel. I know that the war in Iraq is about lives and not points, but the analogy is still true in my opinion.
Yes, we should leave Iraq when we have assured ourselves that we have obtained victory. To leave now would only mean a later intervention, and a substantial cost of more American lives.
