Article: Cut and run or Stay the course?

There are two ways to make progress toward a desirable goal:

1. Engage in activity that is clearly "productive."

2. STOP engaging in activity that is clearly "counterproductive."

As an example: Imagine spraying gasoline on a forest fire in an attempt to "put out the flames." Within a reasonable amount of time it should be obvious the chosen course of action is not working. More importantly, it should also be obvious the chosen course of action is actually making the situation WORSE. In this example, it would be better to "cut and run" from the chosen course of action than it would be to "stay the course." (-Better for everyone, save perhaps those profiting from the sale of the gasoline.)

Now, let's apply this analogy to the situation in Iraq. Our top military leaders have told us repeatedly our approach is not effectively "putting out the fires." Worse, they've said our presence in the country is actually "fueling the flames." Now, I suppose we can keep dumping gasoline on the jungle that is Iraq. Who knows, maybe 20 years, millions of dead civilians, countless American lives and trillions of dollars later, the forest will be leveled and there'll be nothing left to burn. But is that REALLY our only option? And what other costs will America incur? What kind of "blowback" might we expect? (Not just from newly created "terrorists" incensed by the illegal invasion and subsequent slaughter, but also from an outraged international community?)

Contrary to what we were told, when we left Vietnam the free world didn't collapse. The domino theory (used to justify our intervention) proved inaccurate at best. In the end, the Vietnam War (also launched under false pretenses) turned out to be a terrible strategic mistake. It went on too long, cost too much, and contributed nothing to the "safety" of America.

Here again, history is repeating itself. Only this time we're expected to believe Al Qaeda (which at the time of 9/11 numbered less than 15,000) can raise a Radical Islamic Army capable of invading our shores, overthrowing our government and subjugating the whole of America to "Sharia Law." I must say; with 80 million armed American citizens standing in their way, that sounds like a pretty tall order. Until somebody explains the logistics of such an operation, I'll have to consider this among the most ridiculous scare tactics ever stated with a straight face.

But back to Iraq (which oddly enough has nothing to do with 9/11, Al Qaeda or Radical Islam.) I have just a few points to make.

1. IF:

a) Terrorists pose a threat to America and;

b) Our actions in Iraq are only serving to increase the number of terrorists in the world,

THEN:

c) Those responsible for the policy in Iraq cannot be trusted to "keep America safe" from terrorism. On the contrary, they can only be trusted to create more terrorism which will then be used as a justification for more war. People who benefit from war probably have no problem with this, however those who bear all the costs should find it unacceptable.

2. IF:

a) We cannot effectively fight a global war on terrorism all by ourselves, and;

b) Launching illegal wars of aggression makes countries more likely to unite against us,

Next Page 1 | 2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).