Friday, May 05, 2006

Should We Just Go Home?

Summary: Every now and again, media types, liberal Democrats, and others committed to world debauchery complain that we should just bring the troops home from Iraq. Should we? Here’s a look at the 90% of the iceberg that is below the surface of that ocean…

A few days ago, Senator John Kerry expressed his dismay with the tepid pace of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We should allow the Iraqi government until May 15th, he said, and if they don’t have their government in place, we should pull out all American troops from Iraq and bring them home. This ill-thought outburst is only one in a frustrating litany of faux complaints from playboys and power seekers whose goal is not liberty for the peoples of the earth, but a share in governance and control over them.

The frustrating part about liberty is that it is extremely fair, while being inefficient at the same time. Liberty gives people the ability to develop and express their own opinions, almost ensuring a diversity of them. What sometimes adds to this frustration is that liberty does not discriminate—there always exists someone who wants to use his soapbox to advocate and practice tyranny. Perhaps the most frustrating part about liberty is that it gives idiots like John Kerry the freedom to make absolutely mindless, baseless, and stupid statements. But hidden inside this curse is also the blessing of liberty—that it gives people with a brain the right to understand such weak-minded outbursts for what they are, and to ignore them.

With that said, let’s dissect, country by country, what would likely happen if we simply pulled up stakes and went home from Iraq.

Iraq. There are approximately 40,000 people who want to see Operation Iraqi Freedom fail. Twenty thousand of those are insurgents. The other 20,000 or so make up liberal academia, news media, and Hollywood soul-sellers. Millions upon millions of Iraqis see that life is better here now than it has ever been, and that the only impediments to smooth sailing in the skies of liberty are the insurgency, the lack of a unified government, and a not completely mature security force. The first impediment is in disarray, with little ability to make a concerted attack of any sort but the cowardly kind and on anything except innocent unsuspecting civilians. The second impediment has seen remarkable improvement in recent days. As for the third problem, more and more Iraqi men and women are taking great pride in taking the lead in securing their country for a better future. Anything except a natural transition from American to Iraqi security of Iraq stands to destroy everything we have accomplished this far. Millions of Iraqis would be passionately opposed to this. But I think John Kerry knows this.

Iran. No other people in the Middle East understand liberty better than the older generation of Iranians. No other populace in the Middle East expressed more genuine sadness and sympathy for America when the Twin Towers fell on 9/11. No other populace in the world is more at odds with its government. Iranians want so bad to trust America and to be like America, but they’re not sure we’re yet deserving of that trust. If we leave Iraq now, while on the brink of something magnificent for both Iraq and Iran, it will require decades before the people of Iran will trust us again. I think John Kerry knows this, too.

Korea. Korea, with the assistance of the Clinton administration’s willing dupes, continues to snub its nose at America and the west. Meanwhile its people languish. Included in what little they know about the outside world is that their government is listed on the Axis of Evil, and that their neighbors in every direction enjoy a standard of living higher than they do. They see America succeeding in putting down country number one on the Axis of Evil, they see America beginning to engage country number two, and they realize that there is hope for a better future, because their country may be next on the Liberation World Tour.

Egypt. Egypt contains one of the more pro-western populaces It abhors the unfree events referred to there as elections that occur from time to time. Its people are demanding truly free choice in elections. Its people want what we in America have--freedom and prosperity—which they have never had in their lifetimes, but which they can now see on their satellite televisions. Egypt sees that if Iraq can make a turning point toward freedom, then Egypt can, too. If America leaves Iraq with unfinished business, masses of freedom-seeking Egyptians will feel betrayed.

Israel. Up until recently, Israel was the only democratic republic in the Middle East. Yasser Arafat talked often of bulldozing the Israelis into the sea. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said several times recently that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and that Iran could ‘name that tune’ with one nuclear warhead. In the last week or so, Hamas subcontracted its terror operations to a separate organization, so that when the next rocket attack or suicide bombing kills innocent Israelis, Hamas has ‘plausable deniability’ for the murders. Imagine the relief Israel will have when first one—and then other—democratic republics are established in the Middle East, substantiating Israel’s ever-denied but God-given right to live in liberty and peace.

Lebanon. Lebanon is perhaps the second most westernized nation in the Middle East. Lebanon may have the most diverse religious culture in the region. Since President Rafiq Hariri was killed in early 2005 by Hizbollah they have clamored more for liberty than at any time before. But Syrians fear they may be losing control and are turning up the thumbscrews. Hizbollah, funded by Iran is also doing a great deal to bring Lebanese freedom-seekers back under control their control. The people of Lebanon see Iraq as a marvelous example of what they want to become. When Iraq becomes successfully stabilized, Lebanon may become the next democratic republic in the Middle East.

Spain. Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque Homeland and Liberty), the terrorist organization based in Spain, knows how to get results. On March 11, 2004, just three days for the Spanish elections, ETA bombed several trains in Madrid, killing 190 people. As a result, Spanish troops were removed from Iraq. The removal of American troops from Iraq before the time is right will be perceived in the eyes of ETA terrorists as authenticating their vile and treacherous means of destroying liberty.

Cuba. Cuba remains the bastion of socialistic repression, propaganda, and torture in the Western hemisphere. While abusing its citizens on every hand, for decades Cuba has thumbed its nose at the United States, with acquiescence from the United Nations. If we leave Iraq at this stage of the liberty process, it validates everything that Cuba has been doing to deprive its people of liberty and dignity for the last 50 years.

There are other countries that could be listed. It is sufficient to say that the entire world stands as either players or spectators on the world stage where a monumental battle of what is good and wholesome is arrayed in mortal combat with all that in its diabolical debauchery would enslave and torment man. The sides are being chosen; it is becoming a foregone conclusion that each of us must choose one side or the other.

At first, this was only about America. We had been attacked on September 11, 2001, and we soon thereafter obtained credible evidence that the government of Iraq intended to coordinate further attacks against American assets, including those on American soil.

Now, with the Saddam regime irreparably dispersed and destroyed, the battle has become about something much more. Now the battle is about worldwide good vs. evil. Now it is about freedom vs. government control. So which side do you support? Those who want to help people exercise the liberties that God fully intended them to have? Or that small but powerful segment of the population that has been working behind the scenes for the last 100 years to ensure the enslavement of everyone on earth except themselves?

So to answer your question, Mr, Kerry: No, we should not go home.


artwheeler said...

First, I want to thank you for serving America-you are true HERO!

Second, you definetly are extremely excellent writer and command the english language! I won't be able to compete, so please bear with me.

Third, Bush is looking for a person, just like you, to speak for him.

You have covered a number issues and have been misled.

But first, I take offense that you degrade people who don't have the same opinions as you!

Are you saying that we should conquer any country that doesn't have a demacracy and/or isn't pro America?

I know when your in a game it's hard to see the total picture. It's hard enough to play your own position let alone any other. I'm surprised that you can't see the civil war going on! The different sects are fighting amongst themselves for POWER! They have tribal mentalities with no tolerance for other religions.

Can you imagine if here in America, Christians would kill the insurgent mormons or jehovah witness?

Can't you see that the country of Iraq needs to be separated into 3 autonomous states united under one federal flag? Equal representation in there federal government. Sharing the oil revenue between them. Thats Liberty in that region of the world! If we set the government up like that in the beginning, you and our troops could actually get bin laden and fight the true war on terrorists.

Frank Staheli said...


Thank you first for your compliments. I'm not, however, sure that your third statement is a compliment or not. Please elaborate about "Bush is looking for a person, just like you...".

Thank you as well for bringing up an issue that I agree with but haven't written about yet--I like your idea about a federal union of states that share oil revenue. I will research this for a future post. (A huge concern of the Sunni population is that they live mostly in those areas where oil and oil revenue are not available.)

Civil war is in the eye of the beholder. The predominant majority of people simply want to live their lives. I have written in previous posts that a minority of Iraqis are seeking just what you say--power. For example, click here and here

I feel confident, though, that most of them want liberty and equality.

Anonymous said...

Compliment on third comment. Scott McLellan (not sure if spelling is correct) resigned and Tony Snow of Fox network is scheduled to take his place. Can't think of official job description name, but they are the ones who talk with white house reporters.

One last evalution of misled info:

5% of all people are leaders leaving 95% as followers.

In the islam bible, people who commit suicide don't go to heaven. Martyrs do. Palistinians have been doing suicide bombings for years. bin laden comes along mixes a little truth along with alot of mistruths, gets a couple of influential people to go along with it and bam all factions of islam accept suicide bombings as a way to heaven.

Tragic 911 happens and ALL Americans uprise. Congress unanimously declare war on all terroism and especially bin laden who was responsible for the attack. The worlds countries do the same. We enter Afganastan and put bin laden on the run. Then our leader mixes a little truth and alot of mistruths, get a few influential people to go along with it and bam we're in Iraq.

bin laden escapes and is free today.
All PATRIOTS should be very angry!

You mention what it would be like if we pulled up and left? What message would that send? All countries with borders.

The question is what would the world be like without bin laden?

You as a military man must be extremely angry that we had bin laden and let him go. Would we have lost 2300 lives and injured an additional 17.000 troops if we kept our eye on the ball?

Matt said...

That was a pretty thorough analysis Frank. However, I did detect one factual error. You said, "On March 11, 2004, just three days for the Spanish elections, ETA bombed several trains in Madrid, killing 190 people." It was determined to be a Muslim terrorist organization. The Partido Popular (Popular Party, Spain's equivalent of the Republican Party) said it was ETA because they were afraid of the end result, troops being withdrawn from Iraq, if it was discovered Muslim terrorists were behind the bombings. I also saw a special on the Discovery Channel about the bombings, which pointed the finger at a Muslim terrorist group. Incidentally enough, (I speak semi-decent Spanish, I took four years in high school and am going to minor in it here at college) despite PSOE's (the Partido Socialista I forget the rest off the top of my head, their the equivalent of the Democratic Party) decision to take the troops out of Iraq, I saw last year the anti-terror police in Madrid busted another cell planning a repeat bombiong of the Madrid trains. I hope in their coming elections in '08, the Spaniards will realize that appeasment doesn't work against these fanatics. If you speak Spanish (or know somebody in your unit that does) and want to get a decent perspective of their conservative people over there, check out Despite this one factual error, everything else was top notch once again! Stay safe.

Frank Staheli said...


Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It's interesting to know that it actually was a terrorist group more closely related with Iraq. My research was limited to what was reported by some of the major news organizations on the day that the event occurred.

You now have me intrigued, and I will do so more research.