November 29, 2005

The Economist Weighs In On Iraq

The Economist has presented their own list of reasons why our military should maintain its presence in Iraq until the job is completed.

Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America’s aims, and the Sunnis, who boycotted the first general election in January, are now taking part in peaceful politics.

President Bush’s efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.

The Arab world may be turning against extremist elements in the insurgency – the jihadists led by al-Qaida’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has argued that American troops are now a barrier to further progress, and a withdrawal would deprive Zarqawi of the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists.
“This has seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence,” The Economist states. “Most of the insurgents’ victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers. There are still too few American troops, not too many. And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet.”

A fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would embolden the insurgents.

By leaving Iraq, the U.S. would not buy peace. Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have vowed to attack America around the globe.

An American “retreat” would grant militant Islam an enormous victory, and Arabs who want to modernize their region would conclude that they cannot count on the U.S. to stand by its friends.
“The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher,” The Economist concludes.

“Yet it is also well past time for George Bush to spell out to the American people much more clearly and honestly than he has hitherto done why their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq should remain in harm’s way.”

As regards the last point, I believe this would be much easier to accomplish if the media was honest and not biased so far to the left that they are cheerfully derelict in their duty to report anything resembling the truth if it means reporting that something, anything the Bush Administration has a hand in is even remotely successful, and if they were above the sins of misquoting him or pulling random lines out of the context of his speeches.

by @ 10:30 am. Filed under Iraq
Trackback URL for this post:

2 Responses to “The Economist Weighs In On Iraq”

  1. Michael Says:

    I think President Bush and General Pace started dealing with the MSM this last week. they need to hold their ground.

  2. Seth Says:

    It would sure be nice to see some Republican senators and representatives out there lending a hand(or, I should say, their vocal cords), not just Kerry and friends appearing at press conferences, trying to undermine their efforts to inform the public.