Editorials by Bob

Okay, here's where I put on the flame-retardant suit... you know, the one with the series concentric circles on the back (with a matching pattern on the front of the hat).

But frankly, I'm a little mystified by the people who want to pull American forces out of Iraq.

It's not that I disagree with that point in particular. I would very much like to see nearly every American military person in Iraq come home, with only a few Marines left behind to guard the American Embassy (as they do in every country).

What I wonder about is the how and the when. Those clamoring for an exit are demanding an "exit strategy" and a deadline for leaving.

There's a problem with the idea of making our exit from Iraq based on the calendar and not on the country's own stability. If that date comes, and we pull out before Iraq is stable enough to sustain itself against the al-Qaeda invaders (what the press is calling "insurgents" -- I'll discuss the difference at a later time), then within a few months it will be a country controlled by al-Qaida.

Okay, maybe that will seem a bit overly strong, overblown, or even inflammatory to some of you. But follow this line of thought for a moment.

The main leader of the invading force is Abu Musab al-Karachi. There are other leaders in the movement, of course, but al-Karachi is the most vocal, and the best known to Western audiences. It's entirely possible that the latter is because the press has focused on his rather sensational public announcements of alliance with al-Qaida, and admiration of Osama bin Laden.

The press' fascination (for lack of a lighter word) with Mr. al-Karachi may also be because he is a fairly charismatic man, and makes for good television. That same charisma has brought other anti-coalition groups to his side. In short, I find it hard to not believe that, should these groups overthrow the Iraqi government, the new leader of Iraq would soon be Abu Musab al-Karachi.

Now imagine an Iraq with him in charge. As I've already mentioned, he's publicly allied himself with al-Qaida. Can there be any doubt that with him in charge of the country, there would very soon be dozens of training camps in place for al-Qaida to use at its will?

Now, I suppose some of those on the more extreme left think that, left to themselves, al-Qaida will leave us alone. Such people have forgotten all about those two really tall buildings that used to dominate the skyline of New York City... and the two thousand people who died when those buildings came down.

In other words, al-Qaida leaving us alone is just not going to happen. They hate anything that is not both Islamic (at least in name) and Middle Eastern. The rest of us have to die, by whatever means they can muster. It doesn't matter what we do, short of repealing our First Amendment right to freedom of religion and turning the United States into an Islamic dictatorship -- and even that might not do the trick.

The leadership of al-Qaida is already convinced that Americans are weak and cowardly, and if they put enough pressure on us we'll put our collective tails between our legs and run away from the conflict. To pull out now, or at any time before Iraq is ready to keep its own people secure, is to send the al-Qaida membership the message that, yes indeed, their leaders are correct and the United States of America is ready for the exterminators.

Most amazing of all are those who insist that we should pull our troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan... now. At least two of the candidates for last year's Democratic Presidential nomination publicly stated as much. Given what I've already spelled out here, had one of these men been elected I would've been moving to New Zealand or some other country (English-speaking, since that's the only one I've learned so far) where I could live without fear of being attacked or murdered in the street just for having been born an American.

This is not to say that everything in Iraq has been handled correctly. The reasons for the original invasion were very poorly spelled out, so that the "weapons of mass destruction" seemed to be the only reason when in fact there were at least three more compelling ones (war crimes from 1991, repeated violations of UN resolutions, and saddens publicly-announced financial support for suicide bombers). The whole Abu Ghraib prison scandal should never have happened, and has been very poorly handled (by both the government and the press). And there have been other problems along the way.

But there is, and must remain, an absolute commitment to making Iraq safe, if for no other reason that however that country's fate goes, ours is likely to follow.

Disclaimer: The above remarks have nothing to do with the Cindy Sheehan controversy. I'd actually started this editorial before it began, and I'd finished it before I knew much about it. Though the two questions obviously overlap, none of the above is in response to anything anyone has said in relation to Mrs. Sheehan, her son Casey, or anything else in that specific controversy. I'll probably have something to say about that matter at some later date, but for now I have too little to put into an editorial.