Democrats have responded to Bush’s call for a surge of 21,500 troops by saying it’s too few troops too late and that we should instead begin to withdraw our troops and let Iraq take care of itself.

Interesting, considering just a few weeks ago people like Senator Harry Reid were calling for additional troops to finish the job per the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations.

But I’d like to point out the larger picture. The problem here is that the American populace has grown tired of the war and wants out. How has America responded in the past under similar circumstances?

During the Revolutionary War, most “Americans” were against the fight with the British, either because they were loyalists or simply didn’t want to fight for independence. Yet, those in power continued the fight because they firmly believed it was the right thing to do. I think the results speak for themselves.

Most people know that Lincoln sustained withering criticism as the Civil War dragged on with ever more casualties and suffering. There were draft riots in New York by people who were so opposed to fighting in the war that they were willing to fight the government not to go. Yet, he too persevered because he knew the cause was just, even if his fellow countrymen had forgotten.

I think there was widespread and solid support for WWI and WW2, although I’m sure the presidents and commanders had to make hard, unpopular choices as well.

The Korean conflict was another that, after two years of bloody conflict, didn’t generate much enthusiasm. But President Truman “stayed the course,” refused to give up, and made sure that the Communist North Korean and Chinese forces were pushed back.

Even in the much maligned Vietnam War, when public protest was at its zenith, we didn’t pull out when things got tough. Rather, Nixon escalated the bombing campaign to take pressure off our troops in the South and force the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table. The result was a truce which established the border between North and South Vietnam and which would still be in place if the Democrats hadn’t pulled funding for support of South Vietnam after Watergate.

The point is that simply because there is opposition to a war effort does not mean we should end effort. We elect leaders not to be real-time conduits of public opinion, but to lead our country and do what they believe is right, even if doing so flies in the face of public opinion. If you don’t like what those leaders have chosen to do, you vote them out in the next election.

So, I give credit to President Bush for his latest plan. Some have called it political opportunism, but I fail to see how rolling out an unpopular plan could possibly be construed as a political stunt. If anything, the plan has hurt Bush even more.

Rather, I think he is doing it because he realizes or believes that it is the right thing to do. That to leave without completing the job and quelling the uprising, we would be sending a signal to the jihadis that we are the “paper tiger” that bin Laden has said we are.

Moreover, it is a moral imperative to stay and help the Iraqis gain control of their country. Were we to withdraw now, the country would descend into bloody chaos and become a haven for either al Qaeda-style terrorists or Iranian-backed Shiite extremists. Both of which would be very dangerous and likely require us to go back to Iraq to remove yet another rogue state.

So, let’s all remember that in trying times, courage and steadfastness in the face of adversity are not foolhardy or unwise qualities. Rather, they are the qualities which have delivered America and much of the world from oppression and fear of evil men and ideas. And, for goodness sake, let’s stick this out together!

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments