The Surge

I didn't vote last time around. I vote in Montana, but I don't live there. As an active duty Solider I can maintain my residency there and live anywhere; and Montana doesn't charge people on active duty any state taxes, nice of them huh?

During mid-term elections it's hard for me to keep up with the races in Montana and I don't want to make an uninformed decision. So I usually don't vote in the mid-terms. There is a lot at stake right now, so I thought a lot about voting. But to be honest I don't think either side in this country has the right answers.

The first few paragraphs of this story sum up how I felt during the election, and why I felt like there were no good choices:

New York Times
January 11, 2007
Pg. 31

The Fog Over Iraq

By David Brooks
If the Democrats don’t like the U.S. policy on Iraq over the next six months, they have themselves partly to blame. There were millions of disaffected Republicans and independents ready to coalesce around some alternative way forward, but the Democrats never came up with anything remotely serious.

The liberals who favor quick exit never grappled with the consequences of that policy, which the Baker-Hamilton commission terrifyingly described. The centrists who believe in gradual withdrawal never explained why that wouldn’t be like pulling a tooth slowly. Joe Biden, who has the most intellectually serious framework for dealing with Iraq, was busy yesterday, at the crucial decision-making moment, conducting preliminary fact-finding hearings, complete with forays into Iraqi history.

The Democrats have been fecund with criticisms of the war, but when it comes to alternative proposals, a common approach is social Darwinism on stilts: We failed them, now they’re on their own.

So we are stuck with the Bush proposal as the only serious plan on offer.


End of quote.

I listened to the President's speech last night and I liked what I heard. I'm not optimistic about things working out the way we want them to in Iraq, but this seems like the best of a bunch of bad options. I want us to win. I think before you make up your mind about whether this is a good plan or a bad plan, you need to decide what you want.

Do you want us to win in Iraq or not? And what does that mean? We won the war in the first few months. We are in the process of trying to win the peace, not only for ourselves, but for the Iraqi people as well. And a free, peaceful Iraq is a very desirable long term goal. If we can make Iraq into another Saudi Arabia or Jordan (not perfect, but better than Syria), we will be safer here at home.

My question for the President, if I were given the opportunity to ask it, would be: Are we going to disband, or at least control, the militias? He answered several other concerns I had during the speech, he set a date for the Iraqis to take over their security, he said we are going to hold ground and keep the terrorists from coming back into cleared neighborhoods; among other things. This is good, but killing all the terrorists is not enough, we need to control the militias if Iraq is going to be peaceful.

I will go back to Iraq for another tour if I'm called, of course. But I don't want to go if the American people have already given up. We can kill bad guys all day long, but if they have the idea that they just have to wait and we will quit, then there is no chance for success. And our sacrifices will be in vain.

If you are one of those people who believe that our sacrifices have been in vain all along, then you need to get a grip on reality. Start paying attention to what's really going on and less attention to what celebrities are telling you. If you are still arguing whether we should have invaded in the first place you are wasting your time. You might as well argue whether we should have finished Saddam after the Gulf War in 1991, it's moot.

At least as far as this Soldier is concerned. The only question that matters is: do you want to win or not?