With the release of a letter by al-Zawahri, al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader, new questions should be asked of those advocating an immediate pull-out from Iraq.
The main question raised to the far left should be – are you prepared to do exactly what the terrorist want and advance their overall agenda?
In the letter al-Zawahri makes references to the US pullout of Vietnam and how al-Qaida should attempt to duplicate the strategy in Iraq.
Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. … We must be ready starting now.
The defeat and pullout of American troops in Iraq is part of a much broader plan by al-Qaida to establish Muslim rule in the Middle East and eventually destroy Israel. By insisting that America leave Iraq now, those on the left are quickening the strategy of terrorists.
Whether we agreed with the initial decision or not, now is not the time to leave the fledgling democracy to fend for itself against the wolves of al-Qaida. It is possible to disagree with reasons for going to war, but to understand that removing ourselves now would bring about disasterous results. A victory by the terrorist (and that is exactly what it would be if we pulled out) would embolden them to attack us and our allies on even more fronts and to destabilize even more nations around Iraq.
The letter goes on to point out that a good portion of the battle in Iraq (and in America) is not on a normal battlefield, but in the media and the “hearts and minds” of the people.
More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma [community of Muslims].
Unfortunately, as Michelle Malkin illustrates, many on the left in the media today have decided that advancing a liberal ideology through their reporting is more important that advancing the cause of democracy in the Middle East. They view a stable Iraq, purely as a victory for Bush and that must be bad. Who cares if it strengthens the terrorist in the process, we hurt Bush politically?
I understand that many people disagreed with the war from the beginning. I understand that many people disagree with President Bush on numerous issues (I would even put myself in that category). But one cannot place scoring political points over giving the terrorist exactly what they want.
We must stay in Iraq until they are a stable and thriving democracy, capable of defending themselves against the terrorist onslaught. If we leave Iraq, we will be giving into the demands of murderers and putting them one step closer to accomplishing their overall goal – worldwide Muslim rule.
The main question raised to the far left should be – are you prepared to do exactly what the terrorist want and advance their overall agenda?
I'm not in the far left on this one, but the way you frame the question is patently silly, as if we should figure out the terrorists would have us do and then do the exact opposite. If they want us to abstain from drinking Cherry Coke, why, then we should make it the national beverage. If they love to race cars, we should ban racing. The right has been the mirror image of "the left" they decry, by basing their decisions on what al-qaeda thinks. This strikes me as both ridiculous and dangerous.
Here's a radical idea: we should do what's best for the country, regardless of what al-Qaeda wants.
I agree it is both silly and dangerous to base our strategy based soley on what our enemies want, but it is informative to see what they would want us to do and factor that into our plans.
To address your "radical idea," what is best for the country? Is it to leave Iraq for terrorist to take over and have a brand-spanking new terrorist state or to stay there and work to make the democracy stable?
That is the question, devoid of any silly analogies to Cherry Coke (especially since Wild Cherry Pepsi is so much better).
Here's a radical idea: we should do what's best for the country, regardless of what al-Qaeda wants.
Since they want you (and the rest of us) dead and seem not inclined to disuasion from that end, what's your plan?
What's best for the country would seem to be to just exterminate them, and continue to do so as long as they feel feisty enough to pop their heads up.
The utility of surrendering a whole nation as a terrorist training ground escape me. Maybe you can elaborate on how this would be a good long term policy for the USA. You must have a bunch of market index funds sold short or something to be talking like this.