HOME_____BLOG _____BOOKS_____RADIO_____CLASSES_____VIDEO_____PUBLIC SPEAKER

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Response to President Bush's Speech

I believe that President Bush pushed back the Democrats' calls to cut and run. He hit the Democrats head on, detailing what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq. Still, the leftists urged the president not to send more troops, claiming that Bush is heading down the same path - a failed path.

As President Bush stated, this struggle in Iraq will determine the direction of the global War on Terror. And that direction will directly dictate our safety here at home. His new strategy is not necessarily a new strategy, but a correction of direction, and a more determined effort toward victory. There have been failures, he admitted. There have been miss-steps. However, think about my friends, has there ever been a war where everything went exactly as expected?

Leftwingers have argued with me, saying that, "Maybe the Iraqis don't want us to push our democracy on them.

"Bush said in his speech that ". . .just over a year ago nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement." The numbers in term of percentage of population was higher than that of voter turnout in the United States, and these people voted under the threat of death. I find it hard to believe that they don't desire democracy.

Unfortunately, rather than pulling the nation together, violence has continued. The violence is directly influenced by the Shia/Sunni conflict, as well as outside influence from Iran and Syria. President Bush claimed responsibility for the continued violence in Iraq. He said that the blame was his because he didn't increase the number of troops soon enough.

Fact is, regardless of the situation, departing from Iraq will spell failure, and failure will prove to be devastating to the United States.Democrats keep crying out, "But the American People are against staying in Iraq."The American People, then, are wrong.

Good thing Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman refused to listen to the loudest protests during their efforts, or we would be a very different nation, or a number of divided nations.

Fact is, and Bush verbalized this during his speech, if we pull out of the region Radical Islamism will grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be emboldened to topple moderate governments, increase violence in the region, and use the oil revenues to fund their actions. And Iran would complete their drive for nuclear weapons. With a fallen Iraq, Islamism would have a safe haven for planning, training for, and launching attacks against the free world.

With what I believe to be dry runs for terror around the world, specifically in Britain and Miami, America must succeed in Iraq. We must remain strong, and the enemy must continue to second think taking another action against our nation as they did on September 11, 2001.

One change in strategy dictated by President Bush is simple. Prior to this speech after securing an area we would leave and move on to another province or city to begin securing that zone. Problem is, after we'd leave a secured area, the enemy would return and practice their violent ways. Now, not only is the American Military going to go door to door if they have to to secure the zone, but also they will keep a contingent in the area to keep the zone secured. This will require an increase in the number of troops in Iraq.Although I originally agreed that there should be an increase of some kind, I did not originally agree with Bush's numbers. I felt he wanted too many troops to be added to what is already in Iraq.I was wrong. After he detailed his plan, I understand the reasons for the number he came up with.

He also made it clear that Iraq must follow through on its promises, and act for themselves as well.

Bush explained that improvements will not be visible immediately, it will take time. And the Iraq government must establish its authority. Iraq must take responsibility for its security. To assist, we will increase the embedding of American advisors and help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army.

Still, even as Iraq gains the ability to govern herself, Bush indicated that we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq, and we must not allow the terror group to come closer to its goals of bringing down the Iraq Democracy.

Understand, folks, this is not just a struggle against a bunch of thugs in the streets of Baghdad. This is a struggle against a radical ideology that believes in killing the innocent, using children to spread their violent ideology, and quelling the rights of women and anyone that disagrees with their cause. And lastly, something Bush did not mention, I think we need to be investing in ways to divorce ourselves from the need of foreign oil. It has nothing to do with what the environmentalists scream about. If we no longer need their oil, they lose their grip on us. They know that our fuel habit can only be supported by their oil, and they are taking full advantage of it. Our dependency upon foreign oil is literally funding the very enemy that wishes destruction upon our nation.

I agreed with all Bush had to say. I just hope the plan is stuck to. And I wish the Democrats would quit politicalizing this war and support the troops with funding.

Interestingly, these Democrats that are demanding withdraw were demanding an increase in troop presence only a few months ago. Typical flip-flop of the left.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post, Douglas. It's interesting to see the Democrats comments on this. They have repeatedly said that it is our troops presence in Iraq that is fueling the insurgency, so sending more will not help. Makes sense - if you believe that.

They also talk about redeployment of our troops to surrounding areas. (Not cut and run, they say). Congressman John Murtha, who also says it is our presence that fuels the insurgency, thinks we should redeploy our military men and women out of harms way. Perhaps to Kuwait or Afghanistan, so they will still be available if needed.

Makes sense - until you actually think about it.

I guess I have a question that I've never seen any of the pro-redeployment people address. If it is the presence of our troops that is fueling violence, then wouldn't logic dictate that the violence would follow our troops? To Kuwait? To Afghanistan? No matter where we send them? We know that Iran and Syria are sending fighters and weaponry to Iraq, do the Democrats think that they are unable, or unwilling, to redeploy as well?

WomanHonorThyself said...

just over a year ago nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation..true true Doug!..great read! :)