Many political talking heads want you to think we need to win in Iraq and Afghanistan.. and anywhere else this War on Terror will take us. To honor those serving and those who served, we must be victorious and shower in the glory of democratic freedom in the Middle East.
What is victory, though? Do they want to debate what victory truly is and means? I think not. Think about where America was in 2001 and what Iraq and Afghanistan were to America in 2001. We had - and still do have - a horrible foreign policy that lead to severe aggression against America. This build up of aggression ended up leading to WTC attacks that are still really mysterious as to who did them. However, let's look at these two wars and what they mean:
Afghanistan:
On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were attacked. Nearly three thousand innocent were killed during this attack. The reasons not debated, the causes not consulted, instead we used the McKinney idea of assumptive warfare. In 1898 we ASSUMED Spain attacked a ship and declared war on them. This time, we ASSUMED that Osama bin Laden and his militant group Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks.
What did our noble and just foreign policy decide? To attempt to coerce the Taliban (current government in Afghanistan) to hand him over! What a great idea, however, the Taliban insisted he was innocent and that they would hand him over when proven guilty. America would have none of it and invaded the country due to their lack of cooperation.
Was any of this proven? Not then, not later and not today. Go ahead, look it up, prove me wrong, I want someone to. Yet, we waged war on no real reason and sacrificed American and Afghan lives for this.
What was Afghanistan prior to this invasion? Nothing. They were in no way a threat to America and the fact that Al-Qaeda had bases there was of no real big deal. As it is known those who attacked us trained in Germany, France and America. They mostly came from Saudi Arabia (an ally of America!).
Victory is a stable democracy in Afghanistan that is pro-U.S./Israel, as a weak ally against Iran. Is this possible? Doubtful. Is it worth the war and the deaths? Hardly. They go from an afterthought in terms of capable warfare to being a "buffer" to Iran. We did that with Iraq in the 1980s.. remember how successful that was?
Iraq:
2003... the Afghanistan war is pretty low key at this time. Also, this just in Iraq "might" and by might I mean definitely doesn't have nuclear or biological weapons. Obviously, we need to invade.
The WMDs, which was the only true selling point, were never found and it's been admitted everywhere the intelligence was faulty. It makes one wonder what the five thousand American military service are dying for. I don't really have as much to say here, because everyone knows how dishonest this war was.
Victory in Iraq? The same thing, except as of today it seeming more and more like an impossible victory. Two Shi'ite parties, who are pro-Iran, have formed a political coalition and if it is stays together a pro-U.S. Iraq is very unlikely. Even so, Iraq would be a severely weak ally, as opposed to a country so feeble and weak not even Iran was scared.
Victory is weak allies, defeat is weak enemies. What's the difference? Either way, American people are not getting benefits. Our debt rises, our economy dwindles on a doomsday clock, and more Americans die each day.
The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs/Poverty, have no diminished or defeated Terror but only increased it's activity and made it more likely. Thanks, we really appreciate your hard work.
Edit: It's worth mentioning that having a buffer on Iran is stupid. The only diplomatic exchange we need with Iran is free and open trade so the Iranian people can prosper and have the proper social reform. Sanctions and Embargoes and creating puppet buffer states are the acts of Empires not democratic republics!
