Wednesday, December 14, 2005

What is an Artificial Deadline, Really?

Perhaps setting a concrete deadline - be it real or not - might be something we can use as leverage to spoil the terrorists. We all know that all is fair in war - just read Sun Tsu. Perhaps an artificially deadline might lure the terrorists to the same location for extermination. What exactly is an "artificial deadline" anyway? It's a meaningless phrased use to catapult the propaganda (something this speech is not short on).
To achieve these goals, the terrorists are targeting innocent men, women, and children. The enemy has only the ability to create chaos for the cameras with spectacular acts of violence. They know they cannot defeat us militarily. So they're trying to break our will in the hopes of getting America to leave the battlefield early, and they cite Vietnam as a reason they can prevail. Zawahiri, in his letter to Zarqawi, wrote, "The aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy." In the past, al Qaeda has said that American pullouts of Lebanon and Somalia showed them that America is weak and could be made to run. And now the terrorists think they can make America run in Iraq. There's only one way the terrorists can prevail: if we lose our nerve and leave before the job is done. And that is not going to happen on my watch. (Applause.)

Some in Washington are calling for a rapid and complete withdrawal of our forces in Iraq. They say that our presence there is the cause for instability in Iraq, and that the answer is to set a deadline to withdraw. I disagree. I've listened carefully to all the arguments, and there are four reasons why I believe that setting an artificial deadline would be a recipe for disaster.

First, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the Iraqis. As Iraqis are risking their lives for democracy, it would tell them that America is more interested in leaving than helping them succeed, put at risk all the democratic progress they have made over the past year.

Secondly, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the enemy. It would tell them that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run. It would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder. It would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America.

Third, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the region and the world. It would tell our friends and supporters that America is a weak and unreliable ally, and that when the going gets tough, America will retreat.

Finally, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the most important audience -- our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve, and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain. I make this pledge to the families of the fallen: We will carry on the fight, we will complete their mission, and we will win. (Applause.)

Incidentially, if it is wrong to kill innocent civilians how can we justify the killing of over 30K innocent Iraqis? Is it not the same kind of dead that these folks are weather targets for terror or collateral damage or mistakes by US military personel?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

1, 2, 3

You'll know that Iraq is important to America when Congress's children sign up. Could it be any plainer that Iraq is only important to G. W. Bush? When are Jenna and not-Jenna (Barbara) going to enlist? Surely they could roll bandages or pass out donuts. Where's the Bush family spirit of public service? They don't have to fly military helicopters, there are many other ways to serve.