Posted by
mgraves on Monday, January 08, 2007 9:50:56 PM
It seems to me that the justification for our war in Iraq has changed, just not in the way and manner alleged in the fever swamps of the left (and elements of the right).
When we entered Iraq, we were deposing a dictator who supported and sponsored terrorism, daily committed acts of war against the U.S. and U.K., cruelly oppressed his people, destabilized a region of the world vital to our nation's economic security, was held in check only by sanctions that harmed the already oppressed citizenry, and defied the terms of the ceasefire, which left Saddam in power and which required Saddam to not only destroy his WMD, but also to demonstrate and account for that destruction. (More in depth discussions can be found at Iraq3 and links there).
These justifications are not obviated by our present situation in Iraq: they are merely submerged under more pressing justifications.
What are those more pressing justifications?
Namely, the United States has an obligation--to its citizens, to its allies, and to democrats the world over--to demonstrate that the United States can be trusted to follow through on its commitments. If the U.S. were to retreat, the U.S. would invite attack. The U.S. would demonstrate that it is a ridiculous enemy and a dangerously untrustworthy ally. Weakness does not garner "understanding". Weakness garners contempt.
At the moment, Saddam's apparently abandoned WMD programs, his support for and sponsorship of terrorists are irrelevant when compared to the appearance of America in the world. I speak not of being liked by the "international community". Such an entity, made up as it is of tyrannical regimes, has no more moral authority than did Jeffrey Dahmer. America should be feared by those who murder, rape, and oppress people and America ought to be trusted by those who seek Justice. Retreat guarantees the opposite will be true.