Comments on: The Politics of Distraction http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/01/12/the-politics-of-distraction/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert Freedland http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/01/12/the-politics-of-distraction/comment-page-1/#comment-20644 Robert Freedland Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:31:11 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/01/12/the-politics-of-distraction/#comment-20644 It is indeed important to consider what we do next in Iraq. But just like the distractions mentioned, the alternatives are far more complex than (a) leave and let iraq fall to the islamofascists and become a terrorist's safe haven, or (b) stay and finish training the country's military to kill the terrorists themselves. The National Intelligence Estimate pointed out that our presence incited violence and acted as a recruitment device for the insurgents and terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda. A larger question is whom do we support when we are fighting? And what is victory? And how do we "kill the terrorists" when there is an endless supply of them? Do we support a government in Iraq that is Shia-dominated and allied with Iran and anxious to impose Sharia law? Do we side with the minority Sunni group that is angry over Saddam's execution that appeared to be more like on of the ceremonial beheadings we abhor? How do we take sides in a civil war? Perhaps a good place to start would be to listen to the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan committee that was advising the President on Iraq policy. They suggested that it was time to start getting out of that country, not adding more soldiers. Instead this President, as he is inclined to do, privatized his advice with the American Enterprise Institute and adopted the Kagan/Keane "surge" plan. It is indeed important to consider what we do next in Iraq. But just like the distractions mentioned, the alternatives are far more complex than (a) leave and let iraq fall to the islamofascists and become a terrorist’s safe haven, or (b) stay and finish training the country’s military to kill the terrorists themselves.

The National Intelligence Estimate pointed out that our presence incited violence and acted as a recruitment device for the insurgents and terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda.

A larger question is whom do we support when we are fighting? And what is victory? And how do we “kill the terrorists” when there is an endless supply of them? Do we support a government in Iraq that is Shia-dominated and allied with Iran and anxious to impose Sharia law? Do we side with the minority Sunni group that is angry over Saddam’s execution that appeared to be more like on of the ceremonial beheadings we abhor?

How do we take sides in a civil war?

Perhaps a good place to start would be to listen to the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan committee that was advising the President on Iraq policy. They suggested that it was time to start getting out of that country, not adding more soldiers. Instead this President, as he is inclined to do, privatized his advice with the American Enterprise Institute and adopted the Kagan/Keane “surge” plan.

]]> By: Kim http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/01/12/the-politics-of-distraction/comment-page-1/#comment-20565 Kim Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:21:59 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/01/12/the-politics-of-distraction/#comment-20565 Agreed. We should be focusing on the more important question of what to do next in Iraq. There really are only 2 options though. We either leave and let iraq fall to the islamofacists and become a terrorist's safe haven, or we stay and finish training that country's military to kill the terrorists themselves. The answer is clear. Agreed. We should be focusing on the more important question of what to do next in Iraq. There really are only 2 options though. We either leave and let iraq fall to the islamofacists and become a terrorist’s safe haven, or we stay and finish training that country’s military to kill the terrorists themselves. The answer is clear.

]]>