What if America leaves Iraq, gives up on spreading Democracy, retreats into it's island? Is America safer or a sitting duck?
I have always thought the idea of bringing the fight to the enemy is a good strategy. Like basketball, you can't win with good defense alone. You have to make more baskets than the opponent. The Democrats and their lily-livered Republican enablers hope to win the terrorist war by playing a little defense. It would be helpful if they'd admit they're playing a game that can be lost, in a big way. It would help if they attempted a basket instead of pretending that they have the luxury of being spectators.
In disturbing detail, Shrinkwrapped ponders what would happen if America quits. It would be worthwhile to read his whole post. Shrinkwrapped answers why quitting is preferable to the D.C. elites than to fighting, he says today:
I don't expect much from our Congressmen and women. They have very narrow definitions of success and failure in terms of policy. Success is getting re-elected and failure is losing their jobs.That definition of success does not help America long-term. And why are the Senators under pressure from their constituents anyway?
It's a vicious cycle. Americans are nervous about any war. The press didn't want the war to begin with (just as they want to ignore Iran and Syria), they still don't want the war and have been relentless about the body count, and they don't want the war tomorrow, either. Ditto the far Left. The coverage reinforces anxiety of average Americans.
The press saying "we don't determine policy" like I saw one defender say of The New York Time's yesterday, is parsing words. They may not determine policy, but it would be a lie to say they don't serve as policy catalysts. With such misery coming from them, it's not surprising that the electorate is discouraged, which has been the goal from the beginning.
It's not that there isn't good solid information to look at about Iraq and other fronts on the war. It's the unwillingness to be informed. Or, to ignore the information. (Zawahiri being defensive, for example.) The majority of Americans, though, still get their information from the nightly news. They're not reading Michael Yon.
They're not considering the ramifications of retreat. The psychological boost to the enemy would be incalculable. Al Qaeda will joyfully reassert themselves if America backs away from Iraq. As it is, I think that many terrorists bide their time waiting for the next President to see his worth ala Britain. Do the Democrats believe that they'll be spared an attack because they are good people? And how will the populace react if America gets blasted with a Dem in charge?
If Senators have their way, America will retreat, maybe permanently.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit counts the costs of Iraq. Austin Bay has post-Iraq scenarios. All seven are interesting, but none of them address al Qaeda. And while the Sunni and Shia militias seem anti-al Qaeda now, they're counting on the U.S. soldiers to back them up. That will change in a power vacuum. The most likely scenario is a combination plus some other distressing additions:
- Kurdistan survives protected by the U.S. The rest of Iraq descends into chaos.
- The Sunni tribes band together, realign with al Qaeda and fight the Shia--to the death.
- Iraq oil output goes to zero. The economy tanks.
- Iran, with it's economic problems and internal unrest helps, but doesn't take over.
- A humanitarian crisis ensues.
- Syria invades Lebanon.
- Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel.
- China will up pressure on Taiwan.
- Russia will refuse to relent about Serbia and get pushier in Georgia.
- America watches in horror. The Left watches in satisfaction. Those people are animals anyway. This proves what a stupid idea it was to try to intervene in the first place.