Well, it's the next day after the election, and I'm seeing and hearing all the shouts of joy at Obama's victory. I've even mulled things over a bit with a few folks at work, and I'm also seeing responses online, some in direct response to my blog yesterday.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that Al Qaeda is pleased with your choice, Obama supporters. There's nothing like giving our enemy "hope". Well done to all of you. The reason our enemies are so hopeful is because now the heat will be removed for them. They won't have anyone in their faces to keep them in check. As I pointed out a few blogs back, one of Al Qaeda's upper lieutenants openly voiced "hope" just prior to election day that the Republican party would suffer a humiliating defeat. This point alone confirms what I've been bitching about all along. They were hoping for that defeat because they knew damn well that it would make life for the average terrorist much easier. Now they can regroup and begin figuring out ways to get out of their caves and back into our world where they can make a real impact.
The other thing this election confirms for me is how complacent this country has become, even in the wake of September 11th. That horrible day has been essentially forgotten entirely. And it's worth noting that since we're now seven years removed from 9/11/01, most of the very young voters that rallied for Obama this year have sketchy (or few) memories of 9/11/01. If I'm doing my math right, the youngest of our eligible voters this year would have been about age 11 in 2001. Think back to when you were 11 years old. How much attention did you pay to world events? I suspect most 11 year old kids in 2001 saw some buildings falling down, and probably couldn't really grasp what it meant that nearly 3000 people died all at once. In the years that followed, everything that these kids have seen and heard on a regular basis is how the war that "we started" is an atrocity and must end immediately. Funny, but my recollection is that the war on terror was a RESPONSE to 9/11/01. Al Qaeda dealt the first major blow, and we retaliated. But most people these days seem to think that we started this war and that we should quit being an "aggressor nation".
Another thing I'd like to point out is that I personally do not make distinctions between the two battlefronts in the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Americans love to argue that we had no business invading Iraq in 2003. Well I should remind you that Iraq had no business invading Kuwait in 1990. If you want to separate Iraq as not being part of the war on terror, then fine, let's do that for the sake of argument. The war in Iraq did not start with the U.S. invasion in 2003. Rather, it started when Saddam Hussein invaded his benign neighbor Kuwait in 1990 and slaughtered countless innocent Kuwaitis. The outcome of that war was never fully resolved, as Saddam Hussein consistently refused to honor his surrender agreements for nearly 12 years. He flouted U.N. weapon inspectors, and pretty much terrorized his own population without remorse. If you're one of the countless Americans who question why we invaded Iraq because they did not attack us on 9/11, then the continuation of the 1990-1991 Gulf War is your reason. Choose whatever reason you want, because there are many. Want to claim that the U.S. never found the WMDs in 2003 and beyond? I beg to differ. Check out the article from July 7th on CNN.com that shows that a 500 ton stockpile of yellowcake uranium was recently shipped out of Iraq and sent to Canada to be used for energy production. We may have never found Saddam's nuclear weapons; indeed, he may have never succeeded in creating any, although he certainly had a nuclear weapons program underway back in 1990. But the fact that he had stockpiled 500 tons of uranium should be reason enough to have invaded Iraq. It's noteworthy that Iraq has no nuclear power plants, so the only logical conclusion for Iraq stockpiling uranium was for the purpose of eventually enriching it and weaponizing it. It's interesting that the news headline from July 7th really didn't make the evening news. I came across it because I was seeking out news around the world. Heaven forbid that the liberal media openly admit that Bush was in fact correct when he said that Saddam did have the materials to make nuclear weapons. Saddam DID have it. We found it. We quietly shipped it the hell out of there because we didn't dare let Al Qaeda insurgents get hold of it. I'm not making this shit up, people. Look it up for yourselves.
So if you wanna bitch that we had no business invading Iraq, your arguments are unfounded. Chemical and biological weapons were already a fact of life in Iraq, so you can't claim Saddam didn't have those either. Saddam had them. Just because we never found nuclear missiles in Iraq does not mean that Saddam never had the materials to make them, or never had a nuclear weapons program. He certainly had the uranium, and not to make energy. On top of everything else, Saddam had already proven he was a crackpot and sadistic asshole. The records are all there showing his atrocities. Sounds to me like we had every reason to invade Iraq, and then some. Especially in the context of our nation's mindset in the months that followed 9/11. We didn't dare let Saddam take his weapons stash and offer it up to the likes of Al Qaeda. While there was never a direct link between the two ever found, it stands to reason that this was a very real possibility. Should we have sat idly by and waited for that to happen?
Now back to my point about not making distinctions between the fronts in the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. When we went into Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban, we did so very effectively at the onset. That ragtag bunch of animals didn't stand a chance against our military. The majority of them that survived the initial bombing campaign all made a break for the border with Pakistan, knowing full well that we would not be able to pursue them there. Sadly, Osama Bin Laden was among them. But once we killed or chased off the majority of the Taliban in Afghanistan, there was little more we could do there in terms of combat operations. That's when we began rebuilding the country. The initial victories there allowed our forces to engage terrorism elsewhere. We turned our attention to unfinished business in Iraq, and that's how we ended up there.
While it can be argued that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq initially, it cannot be argued that they are not there now. We have Syria to thank for that. Probably Iran too. We see evidence of Al Qaeda's presence every day on the news (if you're paying attention, that is). At least in Iraq, we can actually engage the enemy when we find them. For the longest time, we had little ability to do that in Afghanistan since most of the insurgents fled and regrouped across the border. It wasn't until the last few years that they've been able to put up noteworthy attacks in Afghanistan again. I agree that now there is more of a need for additional combat troops there. But in the years that immediately followed our initial attack, that was not the case. Insurgent attacks on our forces back in those days were sporadic and not very well organized. Our forces were able to effectively respond to most of them. As things are gradually improving, it makes sense to redeploy our troops back to Afghanistan. My fear is that the enemy will simply continue to play their little hiding game and keep jumping back across the border. It's this tactic that has forced the U.S. to resort to remote drone missile attacks on positions in Pakistan.
For all of you Iraq whiners out there, it's also worth noting that U.S. military deaths and Iraqi civilian deaths are at an all time low right now. We now have the lowest death tolls since we invaded in 2003. So if you're going to say that Iraq is a dismal failure, I beg to disagree. And more importantly, so do our forces over there. They're proud of their accomplishments, and thanks to the surge and the eventual cooperation of the Iraqis who turned their backs on Al Qaeda, we've made great strides over there. I wouldn't call the place safe by any stretch, but it's getting better. These things take time, people. If you were expecting the Iraq war to be a 3-day affair, then you are a fool. War is never quick and easy. It takes time, commitment, and determination to win a war. And it takes even more time for a new nation to form and rebuild from the rubble. I'm sorry, but I don't see Iraq as the endless quagmire that most people do. It's no cakewalk, but no war ever is.
What makes me really sad is that I have to sit here and give all of you a fucking history lesson to explain how we ended up in this war. If you're reading this blog, you SHOULD already know this stuff. Apparently, many of you do not. I find that despicable, but I guess it's more convenient for most Americans to ignore the world outside of our borders. Our current economic situation is apparently more important than our own security. My argument with that mindset is this: all other concerns will quickly become secondary if Al Qaeda gets off another attack here at home. The economy, taxes, abortion, illegal immigration, Social Security -- these are all important issues, no doubt. But think back to 9/11 for a second. How many of these issues mattered in the days or months that immediately followed 9/11? Basically, none of them mattered at that moment. Our first concern was for those who were lost, and our next concern was for our own safety and security. That being the case, why in the hell have you all forgotten that? Why have you all become so blissfully ignorant and complacent? Do you think an end to the war and a quick troop withdrawal will make us MORE safe at home? How can you possibly make that argument in light of the facts? The threats never went away. They're still out there, just like before. We've done a good job of hindering Al Qaeda, but there is still a war to be fought against them, and a lot more work to do. And that fight currently exists in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever else it will lead us.
Barack Obama is highly unlikely to continue this important fight. In fact, he's made it a selling point of his campaign to pull the plug on the war in Iraq, and it stands to reason that he'll do the same in Afghanistan. Democrats always seem to think they can sweet talk their way out of conflict. Many times in life, you have to make a stand. That's what the "evil" Bush adminstration has done all these last 8 years. He made a stand. His presidency was defined solely by 9/11. His main mission was to protect the American people. I'm not saying he was the greatest president ever; far from it. But he was doing his job. I'd have done the same had I been in his position. I wish we could have done more (and I bet he does too), but when you're constantly butting heads with the likes of dumbfucks like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, it's hard to make much progress.
You can't make peace with the likes of Al Qaeda, folks. I'm tired of driving that point into the ground, but it seems you're not getting it. I'm willing to give Obama a chance to try and live up to the EXTREMELY lofty promises he's made during his campaign, but history has shown that few presidents ever live up to their campaign promises. So put your "hope" away people, because it's time for reality to set back in. He can't possibly live up to most of his own promises. He's not the messiah. He's just a man. My main reason for supporting McCain was his stance in the war on terror. He vowed to continue the fight and to protect our nation. Obama vowed to end the fight and pull back. I could care less about the rest of his campaign promises, because they're all secondary to my safety and security. If I can't live to talk about the economy or taxes, then why are we worried about them? I happen to recognize the fact that we're in real danger from terrorism. I see it every day when I seek out what's happening around the world. Obama supporters apparently feel that we're under no direct threat anymore. I'm here to tell you that we are.
So for those of you who patronize me and giggle while offering me a "...pat on the head" when you tell me not to worry, and that everything will be alright, I'd like to respond by saying you're completely out of touch with reality. Wake the fuck up. You can call the war a farce if you want to, but our troops will tell you different. They've seen the danger firsthand.
Revel in your cute little victory, but I don't see that we've won anything in this election other than extreme risk. If Obama surprises me and actually continues the fight, then I'll gain some respect for him. But he's pretty much said that he's not going to do that. There's a promise I hope he DOES break.
"Change" should not involve ignoring reality. If anything, the "change" that needs to happen is for people to actually SEE reality.
Open your eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment