Obama wrong on maintaining presence in Iraq

Just prior to my son bringing something to my attention that I will write about in my next post as soon as I'm finished writing this one and publish tomorrow, I came across this article about Barack Obama.

In case you don't feel like clicking on links today, it's a Yahoo News article written by Maxim Kniazkov about how Obama "vowed Monday not to seek permanent US military bases in Iraq and reiterated his pledge to pull out the bulk of US forces by mid-2010."

It seems to me that one of the main reasons for going into Iraq in the first place was to create a U.S. military presence right in the middle of where all the conflict is in the Middle East. That way we can kind of keep an eye on things.

However, with Obama being of the crowd of democrats that believe an American presence at different places around the world is something that makes America look too arrogant (click here for a further explanation of Obama's vision of a world order). To me, that explains why he does not want to do this.

However, I think this would be foolish. I would like to quote columnist Cal Thomas, as he wrote in the book he co-wrote with Bob Beckel, "The United States was once feared and respected. A major reason the world is in such turmoil with so many simultaneous threats is that we have not done enough recently to instill fear in those who would harm us."

Man, I love that quote. In fact, I'm going to say it again:

"The United States was once feared and respected. A major reason the world is in such turmoil with so many simultaneous threats is that we have not done enough recently to instill fear in those who would harm us."

I don't understand why Obama would want to just give away what the U.S. has worked so hard to obtain.

One thing we as Americans have to realize. The Iraqi people were incapable, or a better way of stating it too scared to fight for their own freedoms. So we did it for them. And polls show they are happy with their new found freedoms, and are now willing to fight for them.

For our efforts, we deserve to maintain a presence in that region, even if it is a small one. Just enough of a presence to remind thugs that we aren't going to mess around anymore. If you want to mess with the Iraqi people, if you are harboring terrorists, if you have thoughts about destroying Israel or attempting more terror on America or any of its allies, watch out brother.

We cannot be worried about the feelings of these radical Muslim thugs who wish to kill us. Why? Because their God says that we must be destroyed. Their God says that all the land of the world is "rightly" theirs, and that we have taken it in the name of our God. We, therefore, are the enemy.

These people do not comply with the rules of warfare. They chop off heads and dunk heads in water and electrocute and hang and rip hands off if that's what it takes to get what they want. Better yet, they kill and maim to get what they want. They do not think twice about terrorizing others in the name of their God.

As Cal Thomas writes:

"If we seek to fight this war with the same tactics we have used in previous wars, we will lose. That's why it is ludicrous to be concerned about 'torture' and human rights with people who practice one and ignore the other. The most often heard criticism is 'we can't behave like them.' I agree. We must be worse than them and so humiliate,
decapitate, and eradicate them that those who remain will not think of trying anything like this for centuries to come."

And yet Barack Obama has the audacity to say that we will not maintain a presence in Iraq. Why the hell not?

Oh, I know why, because he's afraid of being seen as arrogant. I'm sorry, but when we have thugs who hide in churches and behind school children with their weapons aimed at their own fellow citizens, Americans and America's allies, America must have a presence in that region if the opportunity presents itself.

I know that the Iraqi people may resist. And I know there will have to be some tough talk to negotiate a deal with the Iraq and the U.N. so we can maintain a presence in the Middle East. Something that will be absolutely pertinent to winning the overall War on Terror -- a war that many democrats simply view as "a bumper sticker slogan."

I have no problem with Obama's desire to pull out troops by 2010. However, if this decision should be made because the Generals, the military officials, have declared that area safe for us to leave. Again I state: the decision to pull out troops from Iraq should not be made by politicians in Washington, of which Obama, Bush, McCain all are.

To further this argument, our next president needs to stay the course of the "Bush Doctrine" of keeping an eye on the terrorists and getting them before they get us. We need to stay on the offense.

That means that we cannot go over there and negotiate with these people.

It cannot be like this: Okay, we don't want to be seen as too arrogant. So, we will go talk to the terrorist leaders or totalitarian dictators who have a history of harboring them. We want to be seen as nice and good. We want to be seen by the world that we can be a decent country. So, here, lets negotiate. We will give you this piece of land, and you stop terrorizing.

"Deal?" U.S. President offers hand.

"Deal." Terrorist or dictator shakes hand that is offered, with the other hand behind his back -- fingers crossed.

So, while we are all happy and the world is happy, those thugs will continue to build their weaponry, and train their little terrorists, and will eventually build up their forces stronger than ever. And they will strike us when the opportunity presents -- in the name of their God.

These are not normal people we are dealing with here. They want us off their land. They don't care if we die. And, it's because of his lack of insight about the threat that faces America, that I have my doubts about Barack Obama.

However, he could prove me wrong.

Are we close to victory in Iraq???

Democrats have been calling for a troop pullout since the war began. They have made no secret of the fact that they do not want U.S troops over there, even if a pullout means losing the war.

This is exactly why Conservative pundits have called democrats defeatists: "They want to lose in Iraq."

Democrats were also against the surge, which is now being called a major success in Iraq, as violence in Iraq is at an all time low. In fact, things are going so well there, that even the Iraqi leaders are saying that it may soon be time for U.S. troops to pull out.

Most people who want to see Victory in Iraq don't want to see an early pullout because the consequences of that would be disasterous (click here for more) not only for the Iraqi people, but it would send a message to the terrorists that America can be beaten.

An early pullout would be a rallying cry for men like Usama Bin Laden. This is exactly why conservative voices have proclaimed that the enemy supports the democratic party, because the democratic party at least appears to have the same goal in Iraq as the terrorists: defeat.

However, a timely pullout after goals in Iraq have been met, and the Iraqi people are fully prepared to defend their own God given freedoms, is more than a welcome idea.

The Bush administration, according to Yahoo news, is now considering withdrawing additional troops beginning in September. But Bush states he will wait until a report in September by General David Petraeus.

This is the way it should be, as it should be the decision of military officials when we pullout of any war, and not politicians in Washington.

I think this news of a possible pullout is great news, even if it's only a partial pullout. If we are to the point that the Bush Administration is talking about a pullout of troops, the same administration that said we were in this war until we win, then we can be well assured that we are winning.

Wonderful news this is. What we need to do now is finish the mission that was started, and get out as soon as possible. That's what the goal was all along. It just took a nasty turn there for a while. And, while most democrats wanted to give up, our president did not.

The result may be excellent news for McCain, who can talk about how he will have a great ally in the War on Terror right where we need one. He can also preach that we are close to winning in Iraq, something democrats said was not possible.

Not only that, McCain has been an ardant supporter not just of the war, but of the surge. He called for this long before it actually happened.

Thus, Obama might be in big trouble here, as conservative pundits have proclaimed, "democrats have been in bed with defeat for so long, if we actually win this war they are going to be politically scarred."

So, now what is Obama going to do, what are other "defeatist" democrats going to do now that it looks like we are winning. I don't want to get too far ahead here, because we have not won yet.

But what if the War in Iraq (which is a part of a bigger War on Terror) is declared a victory? Will this hurt Obama's electability?

I'm no political expert, but I think this would weigh big time for most republicans and a few democrats (Lieberman) who have been preaching all along that we need to be in this until we win.

Hopefully, soon, people will view this war as one of the greatest humanitarian efforts ever, as millions of people who used to live in fear now get to enjoy their freedoms.

And, if the U.S. can declare victory there, that means that those people will no longer have to fear radical Islam will take their freedoms away.

Likewise, people will soon understand the full scope of the War in Iraq as one small victory in the longer War on Terror.

We will keep an eye on this, and we will continue to be humble, as no one knows what the future holds.

A strategy for peace in Iraq is vital to our security

As I have noted previously, the number one most important role of any president is to protect and defend our nation. As, with out a Strong military mite, the world would not be as safe as it is today.

Without our military mite, a nation like Iran wouldn't think twice about destroying Israel, or making a gallant effort at taking down the great western nations of Britain and the U.S.

In essence, whether you agree or not that the Iraq war was necessary in the first place, us keeping that nation stable has now become of vital importance to maintainer peace and stability in that region. And, if that region is secure, so too will be our nations.

Thus, the ultimate strategy of the Bush foreign policy is creatte a stable Iraq. Once a stable Iraqi democracy is formed, people of neighboring nation like Iran and Syria will see what it is like to live in freedom, and will wish to have that for themselves.

And, thus, the ultimate goal is a free and stable Middle East.

People who believe the U.S. and its allies should pull out of Iraq fail to see the big picture. They believe once we pull out, everything will by hunky dory.

I’m afraid that will not be the case, which is why our next president must not support a troop pull-out before a full blown democracy is created in Iraq that is stable and able to hold its own.

It is already documented that Iranians are supporting the insurgency. They are supporting it via military training, equipment and men. There is no doubting that they want, more than anything, the U.S. to pull out of Iraq.

The Iranians, like the anti-war crowd in the U.S., want the U.S. to lose this war.

The first thing that would happen if we pulled out, is Iran would swoop in and take over the unstable Iraq and create a super Iran. The purpose of this new nation would be to obtain a military mite and weapons necessary the complete the total annihilation of the non-Muslim world, starting with the destruction of Israel.

This is exactly what the U.S. and the U.N. tried to prevent with the first gulf war back in 1991.

Saddam’s goal back then was to create a super Iraq, obtain nuclear weapons, and, well, who knows what he would have done with that power.

Fortunately, we will never find out, because Bush 41 stopped Saddam in 1991.

But one thing we do know would have happened if Saddam would have succeeded in 1991, is Saddam would have had a big Middle East monopoly over oil. The result of that would have been oil prices that would have skyrocketed well over $3.00 a gallon, and more than likely, had a negative effect on the world’s economy.

Plus, Saddam would have been rich. He would have had the monies and the power to obtain the military and weaponry he wanted.

Want to know what would have happened then? Saddam would have made an attempt to destroy the non-Muslim world, starting with the destruction of Israel.

Okay, now let’s get back to 2007.

Once this Super Iran is created, the other terrorist nation over there (it’s called Syria), would ally itself with this new Super Iran in helping with the creation of nuclear weapons.

Since some people believe we should not stop Iran from developing nuclear power because they trust that Iran REALLY is just going to use this as a "source of energy," then chances are they are going to get a bomb. It’s inevitable.

The Iranians may say one thing, but they will produce nukes surreptitiously while the rest of the world looks the other way.

How do I know? Well, nobody can predict the future. But there was this sagacious person once who said, "History repeats itself."

It’s eerie how akin this situation is to what happened to North Korea in 1993. Bill Clinton and Jimmy carter negotiated a deal with Kim Jung Ill. As part of the deal, North Korea would not build nuclear weapons in exchange for the U.S. giving North Korea money to help feed North Korean’s people.

Through our hearts, we Americans can be naive at times. North Korea not only got our money, it had developed the nukes anyway.

Such naivety regarding this new Super Iran, or even the Iran as it is now, may result in a new Hitler like Nation pent on destroying (ahem) the Jews.

And, if I remember right, this situation I’m describing is also eerily akin to what happened in the 1930s when Winston Churchill warned the rest of the world that Hitler was up to something, and the rest of the world turned a blind eye to Hitler thinking, “he wouldn't do anything.”

Well, he did. And 60 million Jews and 250 million Americans died as a result.

As soon as the world saw what Hitler was really up to, after they attacked and killed, Britain practically begged Churchill to lead them, and FDR soon had the U.S. join in after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan.

Yep, back in 1941 we waited until we were attacked before we responded, unlike our pre-emptive strikes on would be terrorists of today. I think it’s a better strategy to stop evil when it’s just a seed; before it’s potent and grows thorns. But that’s a story for another column.