Dean Esmay has an excellent post on the moral argument for staying the course in Iraq:

With some moral arguments, there really is no middle ground. I'd like to think there is but there isn't. So my suggestion--as "black and white" as it may sound--is simple: take a stand. Do you want to abandon those people in Iraq or do you not? Do we turn them over to the "freedom fighters" who bomb women and children and mosques and cops and elected politicians as well as our soldiers? Or do we protect the victims of those "freedom fighters," recognizing the "freedom fighters" as vicious fascist thugs and theocratic nutjobs, and try to help the real people, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people, establish a democratic, human rights respecting, and free nation?

Further, I believe the war must be won for pragmatic and Realist (I mean this in the foreign policy school of thought sense) reasons. If we do not set up a government that will be allied with the U.S. in Iraq then we will be sending a signal to jihadi forces that terrorism works. Remember, Osama bin Laden first began to believe that America was weak and could be defeated after our retreat from Somalia.

The Left's freedom fighters who we are fighting in Iraq are intent on setting up a Taliban-like state. If they succeed, then not only has the cause of freedom been set back, but the cause of America as well.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:44 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.