What exactly is victory?

The premise of our war in Iraq is that all people yearn for freedom and an appropriate form of democracy for their culture. We never cared if the end was representative or parliamentarian or whatever...we want a population determining its own destiny, without a government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. If the destiny they then choose is adversarial to a common peace, then the nation has at least had the opportunity to choose peace. And decided against it. In the case of Iraq, however, whether they know it or not, they are making decisions for all of the Islamic nations. Americans are sending sons and daughters into battle on the assumption that peace is the desired result. Washington Times editorial writer Diana West asks a great question at this juncture...

What I want to know is what happens if this much-discussed American troop surge actually manages to secure Iraq, which then emerges as a natural ally of Iran and perhaps Syria? Will we salute U.S. efforts that brought into the (Islamic) world another Shi'ite-dominated, pro-Hezbollah, anti-American, anti-Israel Shariah state with lots of oil? To me, such "success" sounds more like the "failure" that is usually described, roughly, as the loss of American face or the transformation of Iraq into a terrorist haven. In the aftermath of any "victory" in Iraq that benefits Iran more than the United States, our face wouldn't look so hot with all that egg on it, and the world would surely have a new terrorist haven.

My decidedly "pro-Bush on this issue" opinion is that we really have no choice, but to give the muslim world a chance. If they want peace, then this is their time to stand up and say so. We will know if they can't stand "peace" outside of its definition according to sharia law.

espresso beans topowerline