Why are we there ?

Our last, best hope in Iraq -- Gen. David Petraeus -- reminded Pentagon reporters this week of a critically important fact long forgotten by most observers: Our real enemy in Iraq, the true source of all the murders, mayhem, and instability, is not sectarian strife. And it's not the Sunnis or the Shiites, either. The real enemy we face in Iraq is al-Qaida

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't understand this. Nor, for that matter, do the other defeatist Democrats carelessly demanding our immediate withdrawal. They fail to grasp that the root of our problems in Iraq -- again, the true source of the hostilities -- remains al-Qaida. These murderous thugs are fomenting the sectarian strife on both sides of the Iraqi street. Their tactic is the nadir of nihilism.


Lieberman forcefully stated that "al-Qaida, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it."

Without question, it is a near certainty that Iran and Syria are helping al-Qaida with money, arms and explosives. And, yes, if we leave now, al-Qaida will have an open field in which to expand its operations and prepare for the ultimate attack on the United States. In fact, the Defense Department and the CIA just nabbed a high-ranking al-Qaida operative known as al-Iraqi. He was a key link between the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida members in Iran. And while it's great news we got him, he's one more reminder that this network is strong and playing for keeps.



The Harry Reids in Washington don't get it. They fail to see the terrorist fingerprints. But when you look at Iraq through the Lieberman lens, the dust settles. The task before us becomes clearer. Why are we in Iraq? We are fighting al-Qaida. Period.

A final question for Reid: If, as he says, we have "lost" the Iraq war, who exactly has won? Who is the winner, Sen. Reid? Who would you like the United States to surrender to?

It's not the Sunnis. It's not the Baathists. It's not the Shiites. And it's certainly not Prime Minister Maliki. In conventional warfare terms, Harry Reid is suggesting we surrender to al-Qaida.

The above paragraphs are taken from Larry Kudlow's article on Townhall. He has stated in reasonable, plain, language the mission in Iraq and why it is so important.

What he has overlooked, or refrained to state, is the obvious reason the Democrats have adopted this stance.

It is simply power.

They play on the fears of Americans who can't stand the thought of confrontation, on any level. These are people who never stand up for anything because they have not the strength to endure any stress. They are the ones who will have you "talk to the hand" rather than decide where to have dinner. The "I can't deal with that" crowd is their base, the sheeple who will never see that going down fighting is your last dignity. They are the bunch who will "relax and enjoy it".

The surrender crowd in congress only seek reelection. The short sighted bribe, be it feel good because we are not at war, or feel good because I have bought your vote with pork barrel spending, is not in the nations best interest and they don't care.

I will never be famous, infamous perhaps, so I don't have to worry about the feelings of my constituents, or right and wrong, or support an unpopular view. In that respect, I am lucky, I can sit here and pontificate about the proper answers. I do know that surrender is the abdication of principle, and in this case death will be the reward of countless thousands if we choose this solution.