Oh My Lord…
The man is making sense…
All kidding aside, while I still wonder if Hugh Hewitt’s current attempts to pull the Republicans back into what he considers “the fold” based on the war, I am starting to find that the more I listen to him and read his blog (yes, I listen to the podcasts of his radio show daily while I walk the dog and workout) the more sense he makes. I don’t know if I agree with him, but then I don’t have to agree with him 100% or even 10% to appreciate his arguments.
Originally I thought the war in Iraq wasn’t about the things we were being told from the right and the left.
WMD’s? Maybe, but unlikely since the UN didn’t find them in over a decade.
Bringing freedom to Iraq? No. I don’t think that was Bush’s plan.
Going after the oil? Who really believes that someone would put soldiers lives at risk for something we can purchase instead?
My original view of why we were going into Iraq was that Iraq was unlucky enough to be in a strategic location in the Middle East (a part of the Earth that doesn’t like us). Instead of attacking Saudi Arabia (where almost all of the hijackers came from) or Iran directly (which would have been foolish since Saudi Arabia was an “ally” and Iran was posturing but not really a threat) Iraq would become a central location for the U.S. to flex its muscle in the region to keep these nations in check. And to keep them from trying to attack us again. It’s like chess, being in Iraq would put our pieces in very close proximity to those who would want to do us harm.
(come on peeps, don’t tell me you haven’t read The Art of War.)
So like I said, I thought the Bush administation had a different reason to attack Iraq than what everyone was debating. But now I’m starting to wonder what their original plan was. Did they have a plan? Are we just patching up holes as we find them, with no idea what the plan is?
It’s very disheartening to me. But we are also caught in Iraq. Unlike what those on the left think we can’t just leave the country. These people are caught in a civil war, and if we leave without there being some kind of peacekeeping force available then there will be a slaughter.
A slaughter that we will be doubly responsible for. Firstly for going in unprepared for the deep, dark divisions in the country, and secondly for leaving innocent Iraqis to their deaths (which we know will happen if we leave before they are ready).
For my friends on the left, are you willing to allow these innocents to die? This isn’t like spoiling an election, where lefty Greens can help Republicans into power and then walk away saying “We didn’t do anything. We wash our hands of all responsibilities.”
This time your hands will be covered in blood.
And to my friends on the right, can you deal with the fact that our going into Iraq at all, much less underequipped and unprepared, led to this situation.
Don’t give me the argument about Saddam. He was a bastard who got what he deserved and is now with his sons in hell. But going in without a plan, and without enough troops to do the job right led to things deteriorating like this. So the blood is just as much on your hands.
It’s on all of our hands.
So what’s my plan? Somehow we have to get more troops into Iraq. I hate to say it, but it might be time to reinforce the “coalition of the willing”. We might just have to swallow our pride (which goeth before a fall) and go to the UN, or NATO or the African Union to get the requisite number of troops to win this.
I don’t know what else to say. I don’t want American’s dying in Iraq. These troops deserve a lot better from us, right, left, center, you name it. They are stepping into this hell so the rest of us don’t have to, and they deserve all of our respect and love for it. (and why jackasses like William Arkin need to be taken out to the woodshed and smacked around.)
But like Colin Powell said.
We broke it. Now we own it. So let’s get it right. Ideas?
P.S. Apologies to Mr. Hewitt for comparisons to Ralph Nader, no one should have to deal with that. 😉