Why support for winning in Iraq is necessary.

I never had doubts in the hidden intentions of those in Iraq who keep saying that multinational troops must leave Iraq soon; they say their demands are essential for national sovereignty coming out of their patriotic feelings for Iraq while I see them as far as they could be from patriotism. [Note, English is his second language.]

If those people put Iraq’s and Iraqis’ interests first, they wouldn’t have asked the US to leave Iraq while the troops missions are yet to be accomplished and the Iraqi national forces are still not capable of protecting the country and the citizens.
We all know why some insist that US must leave or keep calling the presence of these troops an occupation. The problem is that the ordinary citizen here cannot talk about this in public for fear of being labeled as an agent or collaborator with the occupation and what can an unarmed citizen do to face such an accusation coming from this or that militia.

What pushes these politicians and militias to take this attitude is their dream of regaining sovereignty but not national sovereignty; it is their sovereignty over Iraq.

What is keeping these liars from making a large scale coup over the democratic change is the presence of coalition troops that are protecting the new Iraq.

(Iraq the Model)

I was watching C-Span as the new war critic Murtha was apparently arguing for withdrawal. He's a war hero and an expert on national security so at least he is a much better spokesman than a mother who lost her son. Yet he was answered in stentorian tones by a Republican war hero who demolished everything Murtha said to the point that Democrats were whining about it on the floor. Yet they didn't actually speak up to silence him when he ran out of time and asked for more. A sample:

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.

(SFgate)

Most Democrats seem to believe as their moveon.org fringe does, yet in the end they failed to support Murtha and did not even muster a single objection to silence his critic. I think that despite their fringe beliefs some may see that stability just may increase in Iraq, as many Marines on the ground believe that they are winning and Iraqis like the writer above seem to resolve to see things through no matter what. So I wonder what the Old Press and the Democrats are going to do if Iraq does get to the point that they cannot fit it into their template that it's another Vietnam and so on.

And the public opinion that they've shaped among the masses, how quickly it may evaporate if the Herd senses that things really are going against the terrorists and the old order in Iraq and towards a new Iraq. Perhaps that's why Democrats will not tie themselves down in history with an actual vote on the record for withdrawal, despite all their rhetoric. They fear the Herd, as it tramples politicians sometimes. The Herd is fickle and stupid, so it is better just to make a decision on principle, stick to it and try to herd the Herd along. That way if you are trampled then at least it was for standing for something.

I respect Murtha for standing for what he believes in, although he did believe the opposite when he voted for the war. I didn't see his whole speech, I wonder if he took personal responsibility for that or tried to blame-shift to "It was the Bush manufactured intelligence!" like other Democrats have. I suspect that he would be one to take responsiblity, unlike others.

In the end, it seems that the American Left would have done nothing but rely on the U.N. with respect to 9/11 and the new conflict that it represents* and since the U.N. is notoriously corrupt and inept, worse than nothing would have been done.

*Yes, there are links between it all when it comes to global terrorism. Duh.