Thoughts on Our Mission in Iraq
There has been a lot of discussion by various government officials of having to complete our mission in Iraq before we can pull our military forces out of the country.
Personally, I find the discussion to be pure crap without substance.
As I see it, we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam because we believed Saddam presented a threat to our security. Well now that Saddam is soon to be history, our mission is accomplished.
Ayatollah Bush, with his usual sloppy thinking, expanded the original Iraq mission to one of nation-building. Which is not only puerile, it is impossible. Now that they are out from under the iron fist of Saddam, the different Muslim sects in Iraq are eager to kill each other because, as Sam Harris points out in The End of Faith: Âthey disagree about Âfacts that are every bit as fanciful as the names of SantaÂs reindeer (Page 26).
The administration believes our troops are needed to prevent all out civil war in Iraq. Well the term Âcivil war historically is used to describe a struggle for supremacy of political power in a nation. (Merriam Webster defines the word "civil" as referring to those affairs of a nation's citizens that are distinct from those that are religious.) Thus, the current struggle in Iraq is not civil war but religious war. And solviIraq's Iraqui-war problem begrecognizingniziung that simple fact.
For what possible obligation can the United States have toward the Iraqi people to protect them, as Muslims, from religious war? The simple fact is we have neither a duty nor a right to even try to mediate a purely Islamic religious issue.
Our troops can leave anytime now. The Muslims of Iraq no longer need us. Why should our troops suffer wounds and death for Islam? Whatever happens in Iraq after the departure of our troops is none of our affair. We came to take care of a U.S. national security problem; we took care of it. Our job is done and now we must leave.
Hopefully, the new Democratic majority will be able to impose this view of reality dysfunctional Bush administration.
Personally, I find the discussion to be pure crap without substance.
As I see it, we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam because we believed Saddam presented a threat to our security. Well now that Saddam is soon to be history, our mission is accomplished.
Ayatollah Bush, with his usual sloppy thinking, expanded the original Iraq mission to one of nation-building. Which is not only puerile, it is impossible. Now that they are out from under the iron fist of Saddam, the different Muslim sects in Iraq are eager to kill each other because, as Sam Harris points out in The End of Faith: Âthey disagree about Âfacts that are every bit as fanciful as the names of SantaÂs reindeer (Page 26).
The administration believes our troops are needed to prevent all out civil war in Iraq. Well the term Âcivil war historically is used to describe a struggle for supremacy of political power in a nation. (Merriam Webster defines the word "civil" as referring to those affairs of a nation's citizens that are distinct from those that are religious.) Thus, the current struggle in Iraq is not civil war but religious war. And solviIraq's Iraqui-war problem begrecognizingniziung that simple fact.
For what possible obligation can the United States have toward the Iraqi people to protect them, as Muslims, from religious war? The simple fact is we have neither a duty nor a right to even try to mediate a purely Islamic religious issue.
Our troops can leave anytime now. The Muslims of Iraq no longer need us. Why should our troops suffer wounds and death for Islam? Whatever happens in Iraq after the departure of our troops is none of our affair. We came to take care of a U.S. national security problem; we took care of it. Our job is done and now we must leave.
Hopefully, the new Democratic majority will be able to impose this view of reality dysfunctional Bush administration.
posted by Bob Baker at 5:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home