Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Claire McCaskill's logic not very logical

McCaskill issues statement on Petraeus testimony

"“I think the logical thing is to change the mission, to change our mission from securing Iraq and providing stability to that nation to what we really should be doing which is fighting terrorism. We should be fighting terrorism in Iraq with our troops on the ground, but at a much lower level than we have now. And we should be refocusing our troops in other areas of the world where terrorism continues to be a problem, and in fact is growing because we are bogged down in Iraq. There is a better way than what we are doing now."

I think the logical thing is to support the mission, to support our mission of securing Iraq and providing stability to that nation because by doing so we are fighting in the arena of war where the most extremist and vicious of the terrorists are drawn.

I see no logic in McCaskill's statement that we should be fighting terrorism in Iraq at a much lower level than we have now and refocusing our troops in other areas of the world where terrorism continues to be a problem. Why would you would you lessen your focus on the hornet's nest while trying to swat the strays on their way to the nest? How is that logical? No. You hit the nest with hornet's spray, you kill the nest and the residual action kills the returning hornets.


Anonymous said...

The most extreme terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and they are only in Iraq because we are there (which is why most Iraqi's want us to leave). Most of the 9-11 highjackers were Saudi and not one of them Iraqi. We are in the wrong place.

Jacke M. said...

It has been established that there are terrorists in Iraq. Since we've established they are there then how can you then say we're in the wrong place?

There is one opinion that I think everyone would agree on. Everyone wants to bring troops home as soon as possible.

Not everyone defines "victory" in the same way and not everyone seeks victory.

It simply is not enough to say we shouldn't have gone, we went to the wrong place.


It is irresponsible, and in my opinion, immoral to simply complain and seek defeat.

Decisions have been made, now we have to try to seek "victory" in the best sense of the word.

Victory, to me is not about merely thumping our collective chests and saying "we won." Victory is ensuring, to the best of our ability, the safety and security of Iraq, which is made up of human beings who breathe, eat, drink, seek happiness, seek dignity and freedom and hope for the future. Whether you like it or not, they are our brothers-in-arms. We have a responsibility to them.

Anonymous commenters aren't required to agree with me.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

My take:

We shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place.

However... we're there, and yelping like kids in the back seat on a long car trip will only make things worse for our troops.

Anonymous said...

The terrorists came to Iraq after the US armed forces arrived and not before (the one cell often pointed to was in Kurdish Territory and under the protection of the US NO FLY ZONE). Killing terrorists will not make terrorism stop (tho it will make that dead one stop). One must seek a solution that aims at the cause of terrorism and that is a place the current administration is unwilling to go...The House of Saud support of Islamic-fascism.

Jacke M. said...

Anon wrote:

"The terrorists came to Iraq after the US armed forces arrived and not before"

I think that's debatable and it doesn't change the fact that we're there.

I don't necessarily disagree with the Libertarian Guy that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place but we have to keep in mind that hind sight is 20/20.

There are a lot of people who seem to think that believing we were wrong to go into Iraq changes something somehow. What does it change? Are we in Iraq or not? Are we fighting a war or not? The answers to those questions are obvious. So, where do we go from here? Do we do what I consider to be the responsible and moral thing or do we abandon the Iraqi people because we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place? Why should the Iraqi people be required to pay the price for our choice to go into Iraq and remove an undeniably brutal dictator because in hind sight we think we might have made a mistake in going there?

I'd be interested in you answering those questions instead of ignoring pertinent questions and pretending that because you might believe, in hind sight, it was wrong to go there that somehow that absolves us of responsibility.

I believe that is an unreasonable position and as the Libertarian Guy mentioned is quite like "yelping like kids in the back seat on a long car trip," instead of helping the situation it worsens it. Why would you chose to worsen the situation once you are aware that this sort of input is detrimental rather than positive?

Anonymous said...

To those who complain that as the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia we therefore shouldn't be in Iraq... For me, this begs several questions...

Do you think we should invade Saudi Arabia?

Do you think we should invade Iran, which is openly threatening us and from which terrorists are attacking our troops?

Does the fact that SA's government is friendly and Iraq's antagonistic make any difference?

What about the 500+ tons of uranium dioxide which was in Hussein's possession - should we have allowed him to keep that and his nuclear plans intact?

Who ever said that we were in Iraq to punish the 9/11 attackers?

One thing that strikes me in all this- Al Quaida doesn't want US bases in Saudi Arabia... Well, it's none of their damned business. The government of SA wants us there, and we want to be there. So bin Landen's wishes are irrelevant.

On these scores, I really disagree with the complainers (McCaskill included.)