Yesterday, a bomb at a Ramadan celebration killed around twenty Iraqi civilians (not soldiers or policemen). Anyone who is opposed for whatever reason, look at that statement and tell me how that has anything to do with the United States and their "unjust occupation of Iraq."
There is a recurring theme with attacks in Iraq; they seem to be conducted at random, and they have the singular goal of causing destruction and fear. They have no concentrated desire to rid Iraq of "the evil U.S. forces" but rather the insurgents simply wish to cause instability in a pretty feeble attempt to prevent freedom from taking hold. They see the institution of a democratic government in Iraq as unacceptable and they will stop at nothing to see that the process is derailed.
Furthermore, this most recent attack on civilians is doubly heinous. This attack took place DURING a Muslim holiday and killed many Muslims! This reminds me of another recent attack in Indonesia where a suicide bomb killed several Muslims. Why in God's (or Allah's if you prefer) name would "freedom fighters" kill their own when so many anti-war folks are trying to say that their goal is to rid Iraq of our forces? It seems to me that these actions would have no effect on our resolve to get the job done.
But hey, it's all the same, as long as we're in Iraq, the anti-war crowd will see any "disturbance" as protest to our presence. I have just one question: when we leave, what will you say when the violence doesn't stop? Why don't you just shut up and let us finish the job so that when we do leave, there's actually a force capable of defending Iraq from the insurgency.
Here's a scenario: we leave now, and abandon the Iraqis without allowing the government to fully form. So what does this accomplish? Well at the current rate, we'd spare the lives of around a thousand soldiers. Keep in mind, however, that this rate is lower than the accidental death rate during peacetime on American soil. So doesn't it seem better to accomplish something and add benefits to outweigh these costs? Moving on, leaving now would leave the Iraqi political process to their own devices, and the Iraqi police and soldier training to a group with very little experience relative to trainers from the States who are doing this now. Does the anti-war crowd suggest that the private contractors providing these highly-skilled training officers to pull-out with the troops?
Well here's the pro-victory scenario: we stay until the job is done, and we ensure that when we do leave, the Iraqi forces can take care of their own. At this point, there isn't a sufficient force to maintain order in the case of a sudden U.S. pullout. If there's no order, there can be no democracy. Chaos would ensue, and in the confusion would arise a situation suitable for a hostile takeover of the fledgling government that would most likely end in another brutal dictatorship. However, if the United States stays the course, the Iraqi forces will be able to keep things under control while the political process inches closer to success.
One final question for the peaceniks: can you put a price on freedom? What level of casualties would you accept if it meant providing freedom to people who've never known it in their lifetimes? If you say none, then you are simply naive. This isn't Eden, or an ideal world where we can just snap our fingers and make things right. People die, it's a fact of life. It's all a matter of how they die, where they die, and the role they played in the world while they were alive. Would you rather have them die in training as the result of an accident, or would they be more valuable to everyone if in the process of dying, they'd spent a few months or years in Iraq saving families from tyranny and watching an oppressed people break free from those chains and learn what it means to be free? You decide for yourselves, but I'm sticking with the latter.