Withdrawing from Iraq

This week has been a busy week for opponents of George Bush. One would think from the way that they acted that George Bush was a real threat and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was merely trying to set up an organization for delinquent boys. Of course, I realize that there are people out there that do think in those terms, but they have become blinded by relativism and moral equivalency.

I prefer not to discuss in this forum specific policies, especially those as relate to Iraq. Instead, I prefer to talk about principles that underline those policies. There are several principles at stake here.

First is the principle of unity of a nation when faced with a threat. I will not reargue everything that has been said about the threat of Saddam Hussein. I will merely restate that even if he had no weapons (of mass destruction or otherwise) whatsoever, his very existence marked a threat to the world order, and the rule of law. He stood in ideological juxtaposition with every principle that is the basis of modern society, and was therefore tremendous ideological threat. You can see this by how much the vultures of extremism (the primary beneficiaries of absence of law) have made common cause with Saddam Hussein, whether he supported their particular brand of extremism or not. It is as though they saw writing on the wall in Mesopotamia, as was see so long ago.

However, all that being set aside, previously in most countries, in a majority of situations, people would set their domestic political deliberations aside and fought the battle's at hand, saving historical analysis for after the war was won. This is crucial because of the nature of war.

In order to win a war the formula is simple. You must convince your enemy that you are willing and able to inflict more damage (including death) upon them, than they are willing or able to accept. Of course, on the other side they are attempting to do the same thing to you first. If you publicly announce your opposition to the battle, you give the enemy reason to believe that he is about to succeed in his objective, before you can succeed in yours. This gives him a second wind.

Indeed, it is much like the difference between a runner who believes that the race will never end and the runner who believes that the race will end only a few hundred meters away. Every runner sprints those last few meters. Even in physical training, trainers will often deceive their trainees by saying "just one more." In essence, those who are questioning America's resolve to finish the fight that we began are doing just that. However, if they believe that they are helping someone who sees them, as any more than a patsy they are deceived.

I will not question the patriotism of such people. Patriotism is a state of mind, not a set of actions. Perhaps they really do believe that by undermining American military efforts overseas they will in fact improve the standing of the United States. I cannot read their hearts. However, honesty in this would be refreshing, although wholly unexpected. Nevertheless, as a foxhole philosopher, I do not appreciate aid and comfort being openly paraded before the world as patriotism, and the best thing possible.

When the time comes for us to withdraw from Iraq, then it will be obvious, and will not require the Clarion of one congressman, or even one party. When that time comes, please discuss it in secret. That way we avoid giving any intelligence advantage to the enemy, and the appearance of political opportunism at the expense of the blood of my brothers and sisters at arms.