Then we shall see whether they truly desire freedom or whether they desire something else.

Either way, that will ultimately be their decision. We may only give them a good example to follow – we cannot know that it will take.

Hot Air has a must read Guardian UK article about a Fallen British soldier’s father……

rayvet on January 20, 2007 at 9:43 AM

I agree with you, Sven’s point was well taken. I think we as a nation can live with an Iraq that begins this process of converting to a true democracy with the idea that they will take the examples of the current Muslim democracies a step further towards a very progressive moderate democracy. An Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, AND be a partner in the war on terror. That goal leaves a lot of room for the individuality that you are concerned about that a Muslim democracy will require.

One of the things that I have found hard to deal with is the people who have called me to pass their condolences then gone on to tell me that the war in Iraq is wrong and that we should pull the troops out.

I think that people who do not support a war are naturally opposed to seeing others die in it, and would therefore feel uncomfortable seeing a person make a sacrifice they would not be willing to make themselves. Likewise, people who may agree in principle with a certain millitary action or offer only tepid support will, upon the realization they would not sacrifice their own lives for “those people,” will be made enough uncomfortable in the sacrifices of others to end up opposing it. That is why a Commander-in-Chief should not, in my opinion, “listen” to what the people have to say about a war, but should instead confer with his own advisers and military in planning for ultimate victory.

But how is an argument that “If our troops pull out my son will have died in vain” any less shielded than an argument that states that my child died in 9/11 and I am against the war? I don’t get it.

A soldier risks his life, and dies, following orders that are designed to ensure his unit’s ultimate victory. There has to be a lot of faith that things will end right to make the ultimate sacrifice years before who wins and who loses gets sorted out. It is the responsibility of the military and civillian leadership to have a plan for eventual victory and stick with it to the end so that soldier, and all soldiers, have not “died in vain.” If that is shielding, then it is well earned.

rayvet on January 20, 2007 at 8:36 AM

That is not true. Turkey has been a functioning democractic muslim country for many years.

My son (cavalry) has NO RESPECT what-so-ever for anyone who says ‘I support you and think you are soooooo wonderful-etcetc….but I don’t support the war’. He asks them what they do for a living, then tells them ‘You are smart to be working at such a stupid job’. I’m sure a nose or two will get broken before it’s all over…

God bless em all….

That’s strange–someone says the war is wrong but we shouldn’t pull out (and they don’t have political aspirations).
The war was not ever wrong, but I appreciate this parent’s support and I mourn his/her loss.
Black Adam on January 20, 2007 at 2:54 AM

He actually said “WAR IS WRONG, but they are wrong too…”

Not THE war.. Meaning all war is wrong in basis, but with terror and tyrants, dictators, mass murderers running countries, war is inevitable.
So to stay free, to stay ALIVE, we enter war to stop evil where it is. Evil must be stopped. Imagine if we never did anything against these evil warmongers so full of hate.

An amazing letter to the Guardian from the father of a slain soldier is eye-opening and brilliant in its simplicity: ‘If our troops pull out my son will have died in vain’.
One of the things that I have found hard to deal with is the people…

His son may have died without current comprehension, but that will come as the front presses into the U.K. and EU and the U.S. thanks to the cowardice of the politicians, the active ignorance of the Media (“Koran?… nope never read it, personally.”), and the lack of historical grounding of the populations in the West.

As if we, as nations, are able to say to this enemy: “Okay, we’re going home now…” without being seen as laughably decadent and lacking in the instinct to survive. And without being tracked to your hiding places and slowly eliminated. By demographics, legalistic intimidation, and by hesitating to strike… as the iron cools.

Having lured terrorists out into a zone of conflict in Iraq… however cunningly or inadvertently… the point to is crush them. Not be frightened of intetnionally retreatist / defeatist headlines and losing their will over hysterical reports of which remains a well-fought war, so far, with fewer casualities in 3 years (and untallied enemy dead) than have perished on one day or in one battle in most past wars.

Soldiers die for their countries’ noblest aims, whatever the slimy politicos do with their sacrifice afterward.

Until the scope of this war against resurgent Imperiaistic Islam is acknowledged, and clearly named, people in the West will hide from it until the battlefront hits home.

And hits hard enough for them to remember it after a few years -and not something minor (a mere 3,000 in New York and D.C. and Pennsylvania, or a slight 50-plus dead in London) that they can wish it all away. And pretend is something easier to manage (race relations, religious bigotry, etc.) than a global, theo-ideological conflict between Civilization and a Terrorist Tyranny.

Knowledge will honor all who die in this War. If not today, then, assuming we survive, in Time.

I don’t get it.

TheThink on January 19, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Exactly!

I’m sorry, but if you still don’t get it by now, then you’re probably never going to get it.

I have a question;
Why is it that the Left feel its okay to start something and not finish it? they seem to do it, quite often, almost as a matter of policy.

Viper1 on January 20, 2007 at 7:10 AM

In the case of the Iraq war, it would seem that they incorrectly interpret the saying If the going gets tough, the tough get going, as in “go home.”

But if we define that as a democratic government, we are in for a rude awakening. Can’t be done.

rayvet on January 20, 2007 at 6:53 AM

With three elections under their belt and the other progresses made (see http://www.usaid.gov/iraq ) I’d say they already are a democracy.

Please remember that our democracy supported slavery and many other human rights abuses at it’s inception. We declared independence in 1776 and won the war 5 years later in 1781. It wasn’t until 1787 that we adopted our constitution. Our constitution took about 6 years and we weren’t fighting sectarian violence or a murderous insurgency.
The Iraqi’s have had a democracy for about a year, don’t you think that they deserve the time to get better at it?

I promise I mean this with all due respect, but how is a post like this any different than Ann Coulter’s (and many conservatives’) gripe against liberals who hide behind the shield of victimhood when discussing the Iraq War?

I do not mean to disrespect the fallen, both in Iraq and those who died on 9/11, I really don’t. But how is an argument that “If our troops pull out my son will have died in vain” any less shielded than an argument that states that my child died in 9/11 and I am against the war? I don’t get it.

And, again, I do not mean any of the above with disrespect to the fallen. But it is a question that I keep having when I see the argument made to stay in Iraq so that someone’s death, which cannot be taken back, will not have been in vain.

TheThink on January 19, 2007 at 8:51 PM

I have a question;
Why is it that the Left feel its okay to start something and not finish it? they seem to do it, quite often, almost as a matter of policy.

This is where we are making a big mistake. We can not bring democracy to these people/this culture. They are too primitive and their underlying religious beliefs are the opposite of what democracy is all about. What we did was rightous and best for our country and all peace loving countries, but to try to instill a form of society that can not be appreciated by a group of people is not the way to go. We need to make sure there is a functioning police force, some rudimentary form of goverment (hell, anything is better than what they had) and tell them we’ll be back again if they develop into any type of society that we feel threatens us or any other free country again. In essence, we threaten to bomb them back to the stone ages. Let’s let them kill each other if they want. That is not our problem. Our National security is our problem. Destroying their military infrastructure and removing Saddam from power was needed and we accomplished that. Reigning in their radicals and terrorists now needs to become their problem. We’ve showed our commitment to helping them get a good start, now they need to show their commitment on implementing some form of organized government. I’m certainly not advocating cut and run, we need to stay until the job is finished. But if we define that as a democratic government, we are in for a rude awakening. Can’t be done.