What will the world think about the House resolutions to oppose the troop surge

This will embolden our enemies? I dunno. I guess I could believe that. But I could also believe the surge would make our enemies desperate so that they initiated a surge of their own. Like I asked the ConservativeArtist: Are terrorists making our decisions for us?

Smith, thanks for the comment. I agree with you that the resolutions are sending the wrong message to terrorists, who will make a propaganda victory out of anything they can. If we in America read news that over half of the militant leadership decided that they should NOT increase their military pressure against the "foreign occupiers,"then we would see that as a pretty good sign, right? US public opinion would probably look more favorably upon the war, knowing that we were making that kind of progress against the enemy's morale. Why would our enemies, therefore, see this as anything other than a good reason to assume America will quit soon? (Except for the US/Iraqi surge which so far is proving fairly effective on the ground).

Thanks for the comment. I agree with your assessments of what certain groups in the world would think about this House resolution. Iran certainly cannot beat us in a war, but he knows that if we pull out of our own war in Iraq, we will certainly not have the support to go in against Iran. He essentially can get away with a lot more, and will see America as a tiger without any teeth. The only time I think we will actually go to war with Iran (by invading the country) is if Iran attacks Israel militarily. I don't think Iran is that stupid. Iran will hide behind forces like Hizbollah to do its dirty work instead, and thus avoid such a direct conflict.

Thanks for the comment, Sage. I agree, the militants will claim a propaganda victory over anything they can, and they will see this as our own leadership handing them a propaganda victory on a silver platter. Fortunately, they are not able to make much use of this, because Bush and Malaki are seriously stepping up the efforts in Iraq, and not just by adding more troops on the ground, but actually changing the way the war is fought. Malaki knows that the American public must see progress, and he knows that quelling civil war is more important than political ties with the powerful Shiite militant Al-Sadr (who apparently has fled to Iran.) I disagree that the troop surge is like throwing water on an oil fire. Of course our enemies will try to adapt to us, but does that means we should never fight? This surge is US adapting to them. One might say that Bush should have never destabilized the region, but it was not stable anyway, and certainly not in a way favorable to Western civilization.

You are right that islamic countries should be kept away from nukes, But now there is no point in this. Pakistan is already a nuke state, and it wont be long before they aquire the capability to strike Isreal. I said saddam and osama were enemies because this entire conflict has their enemity as one of the important causes. If you remember, the 1st gulf war was supposed to be fought by osama against saddam. But osama got angry because US troops did it instead of him. Before this US and Osama were allies. So, how can Saddam and Osama be allies if Osama wanted to kill him in the past. I dont think this sunni thingy is very strong in Islamic states, as they keep fighting among themselves regardless of their casts.

Pakistan, unlike Iran, is not openly threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Musharref is under a lot of pressure from Islamists, and he has made some decisions very detrimental to our progress in fighting the war on terror (for instance, his recent treaty with the Taliban-friendly tribal leaders in Waziristan.) However, he is not unhinged like Ahmidenijad, threatening openly to destroy Israel, and holding conferences declaring that the holocaust was a myth. We cannot let Iran get a nuke! Also, I am still not convinced that Osama and Saddam hated each other so much that they would not be allies against America. I know that Osama offered to help defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam during the gulf war (which was declined.) There is no convincing evidence that they were enemies (I never heard of any terrorist attacks by Al Queda inside Iraq, nor of any attempts to crush Al Queda BY Iraq. Both would have had the power to conduct such operations.) Also, the statement that Osama and the US were allies (vis a vis CIA funding, was convincingly refuted as a myth. Osama ALWAYS hated the US, and he was certainly wealthy enough to get his own funding, without betraying his principles by dealing with the US! It is kind of funny to hear someone say that Osama and Saddam would NEVER have worked together, because of their different ideologies (secular vs religious, and all that nonsense) but then turn around and accept that Osama worked with the US! Yes, Sunnis fight amongst themselves. The Sunni / Shiite divide is deep and critical in the Middle East today. It is similar to the Catholic. Protestant divisions in Europe in the seventeenth century.

I agree with your first paragraph. I don't think that Iran or Iraq would ever directly attack another country with nukes. I DO think that they would pass these nuclear weapons off to terrorist cells, depending on who is in power. With a man like Ahmidenijad in power, threatening to destroy Israel, and funding terrorist groups like Hizbollah and now Hamas, I think we need to take a nuclear threat seriously. There is a direct link between the war on terror and preventing Islamist countries from getting nukes. Second, I don't think we will end up going to war with Iran. Bush doesn't want to get in another war when one has such unpopularity. Ahmidenijad will try underhanded things to weaken us, but nothing that will FORCE us into war, because he knows that we have thousands of battle-hardened troops at his doorstep, and that Bush won't rule out war if necessary. Third, what evidence do you have that Osama and Saddam were enemies? Both were sunnis, both hated the US with a passion. It seems like they would be better allies than enemies.

i agree but i don't beleive that iraqi people don't want democracy. just that what works for us doesn't necissarily work for everyone else, seperation of church and state etc, we cant force that on them. not all islamists want to rule the world, there are those that are using and abusing the religion for power, telling complete rubbish to other islamists they have to fight and die for their religion. and then you have these young naive islamists that are believing in this cause, so much that they are prepared to die for the cause. this is showing up in research, where statistically younger islamists are more prone to extremism than the older generation. they are destroying their own religion for their selfish reasons.

The house resolution passed. The identical resolution in the Senate did NOT pass. Everyone wants a say in who is in power, and it is amazingly ignorant to think that any culture would not want a choice in their leader. If the Iraqis do not understand nor want democracy, why did they come out in such huge numbers to vote? I agree with a couple of your points, rev. I DO think that there are radical, militant Islamists who want to take over the world, (but I do not confuse these people with the majority of peace-loving muslims, who are content living their own lives.) Also, Ahmidenijad and our other enemies hate us with or without the war in Iraq. The House resolution will not convince them to like us more, but that is not the point of my post. I am concerned that the resolution creates a sign of weakness and impending withdrawal. This kind of message only encourages our enemies to continue provoking us, and if they are really canny, they will release statements specifically targeting the American public stating that their hatred stems from the occupation. A lot of Americans are myopic enough to buy such a propaganda effort from our enemies. Mistakes have been made in Iraq, but it is not an unwinnable war by any stretch. Also, guarding our shores and excluding the Middle East hornet's nest is pretty stupid. We must be effective at both! Not exercising the military option is like only playing defense in soccer. You can block a few goals, but you will never win the game. The other team has the entire field to play with, while your team huddles frightened around the goalie. When the other team keeps taking shots, they are bound to get one through. If we keep on the offense however, our opponents will be forced to worry about their goal too much to mount a good offensive strategy. War is not the same as sports. But in both sports and war, you must go on the offensive to beat your opponents.

I agree that we should be guarding our own shores. What we are doing is not working. It's simply not. Figure out a real plan or get out now I say.

I agree with you. If the Democrats really feel that Bush intentionally misled us into a war, and that the war was a giant mistake, worth impeachment, then why are they tip-toeing around it, voting on vague non-binding resolutions? Cut off funding for the troops- force the war to grind to a halt. They should start impeachment proceedings now! As it turns out however, MANY Democrats voted for Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, believing the same information that the Bush did. Democrats do not want to seem unpatriotic, of defeatist, as they go into the next presidential election. They must show they support the military, and are strong on defense. To cut off funding outright would show their weak stance on defense. They don't talk about impeachment anymore, because they were just playing politics. Dangerous politics, but politics nonetheless. If Bush really misled us into war, then Democrats are irresponsible for not impeaching him. But Bush did not really mislead us (at least based on the information he had) and the Democrats know it.

Your first questions were about what "the world" would think about the resolution, not Islamic terrorists specifically. Furthermore, I think you're making a few assumptions on what those terrorists' reactions to this resolution will be. You might end up being right in those assumptions, but neither of us know that yet.

Granted, I could have worded the question better. But really the big people that we should care about are those allies and enemies involved in the war, which France is not. As far as our enemies go... how can they POSSIBLY see the house resolution as anything BUT positive for them?

Thank you for the comment, MntlWard. The reason for my question, and the overwhelming response from people even against the war, is that our enemies would see this resolution as a sign of weakness, a sign that America may be ready to back down. Wouldn't you agree with this assesment? I agree, 300,000 troops would be a nice way to finish this war, but was never really feasible. You miss the point about the troop surge. First, it is not just a higher number of troops doing the same thing. It is a higher number of troops taking the gloves off, so to speak. US and Iraqis are now doing patrols 24/7, instead of just during the day time. Also, Malaki now knows that he MUST go after Shiite militias, like Al Sadr's forces, for instance, if Malaki doesn't want a full-out civil war for years to come. So far, even the news outlets that usually criticize everything about Iraq are grudgingly reporting that violence is down in Bagdhad. That respite is ALWAYS good for Iraqi civilians. Sure, everyone is being cautiously optimistic, but it is a sign of improvement, which the House of Representatives chose not to take into account in their political jockying. Also, conservatives never really cared what Europe thinks, and they were right to do so. Europe has no credibility with anyone. They believed Saddam had WMDs just like we did; they knew that Saddam was violating UN resolutions; but France, Germany, or Russia never would have given up their lucrative oil contracts to get rid of a terrorist-supporting despot. Why should we care about what Europe thinks? They aren't the one's fighting us. I specifically asked for what MILITANT ISLAMISTS think, as they would paint this resolution as a sign that they are breaking the will of Americans, and close to victory, if they can just hang on.... Or what about the Shiites in Iraq, who are counting on America to keep its promise and help them achieve both FREEDOM and SECURITY? Will they see this as a sign of weakness, and therefore be inclined to side with militias for their own protection. After all, if I were in their shoes and saw signs that America was about to "redeploy," I would start looking for other protectors NOW. What about the president of Iran? He is watching this to see how America fights wars in the middle east. If we lose this one, he will know how many casualties Americans are willing to take before they will quit. This kind of knowledge gives him a lot of leverage.

i understand and competely appreciate what you are saying. but i think it's far more complicated than we know, because we can't speak about iraqi's collectively, there are many many groups with different aims. there are those who want to turn the whole world islamist who we often refer to as the terroists, then there are the ones fighting the coalition forces, beleiving they are a ligitimate cause for saving their coutnry from outside intrusion. and then there are those who beleive we are helping us. and many inbetween. but because there are the insurgents that will just not give up until we have left the country, i beleive it is high priority we step back. the quran prohibits muslims from fighting unless to protect themselves, their own, or their country. these people are not terrorists! they just feel it's their duty to protect their own state. they don't attack the official iraqi forces, only coalition forces. we can't hardly blame them, i think we would all do the same if iraqi forces turned up in our country. it is no way as simple as politicians or the media try to make it out to be, and i really don't think any one will have the right answer, there probably isn't a right answer. but to me it seems really important to decrease our presence. there are little statistics to go by but the majority of iraqis want us to leave, and 47% agree with attacks on coalition forces. i also tried looking for videos f average iraqi's views on coalition forces and alot of them will say they want us out of the country. the new governent is also a complicated issue because alot of iraqis refused to vote out of protest, as they beleived they were not being represented. their constitution requires that the country be split up into regions, so to better represetn the many minorities. but that hasn't happened yet. with so many different religions and interests in one coutnry, not everyone feels they are being represented, that coupled with their beleif that we are only there for our own benefits, there is a big resentment for us. these are my views only and i absolutely respect anyone's oppinion that we are benefitting the country. but i personally think they have had enough of us.

Here is a question then. If the Quaran does not allow them to attack anybody, then what was the deal with 9-11? How about all the other places where we were attacked not only previously at the WTC but also everywhere else. Since when is a boat that is refueling a threat? See, this is the problem. Not all Muslims are terrorists, in fact most are not. But the ones that are, are using their religion to justify their acts of terrorism. This is the same religion that you say forbids them from doing so. All it takes is one rogue religious leader who hasn't had enough fiber in his diet to give special permission to bypass the commandments as written in their book. This has been done on numerous occasions. It doesn't matter if we are over there or not. We weren't there when 9-11 happened, but it happened anyway. Pulling out is going to have no other effct then the terrorists will again be free to attack on our ground instead of on theirs.

But will this congressional resolution not encourage the terrorists to continue their efforts with renewed vigor? Do you think Al Queda in Iraq will just go home if we withdraw? Iraqis want security. We were taking a less combative roll by letting the Iraqi army handle as much as possible. They couldn't quite stand on their own yet, or were unwilling to do so, because of the deep sectarian divide. US troops need to be more combative, to keep the general population safer from militias. Also, we did not choose what kind of democracy Iraq would have. We just got rid of the current regime. They ultimately decided what they wanted.

Thank you for your comments. As you might expect, I disagree with most of it. With so much our economy tied in with the rest of the world, we simply cannot let countries fight their own wars against militant Islam, although I wish some countries WOULD do a little more of their share. Terrorist groups are fighting the West globally, and so the West must fight terrorist groups globally. I am also not sure how we are emboldening our enemies by having our troops there. What would truly embolden them is to withdraw. Wouldn't you be emboldened if your enemy withdrew from your country? We have defintely made some mistakes, but I think those mistakes involved letting the Iraqi military take on too much too fast, considering the serious sectarian divides that Saddam left us with by his brutality against the Shiites. If we create stability in a post-Saddam Iraq (imagine- stability AND freedom) then it will be a tremedous propaganda and political defeat for the radical militant Islamists. Healthcare and public education are issues that need to be fixed, but those are separate issues. Would you advocate ignoring the rest of the world, even though so many of us benefit from global trade? If we are to continue trade with the rest of the world, we must take terrorism seriously. You sound like you are advocating a socialist, isolationist government. Nice ideals, but where are the realistic sdolutions? How can this system be supported by a rapidly growing older population, and a declining birthrate? Best regards, -Artist PS: Politics aside, I liked your photographs on your website. Very nice!

They hate us regardless. House resolutions like this will give them a good idea of how much the American public is willing to take in war. This is priceless information that we just broadcast to our enemies.

Thanks for your comment. I agree, we are criticising the policy before it has a chance to work (and so far, it seems to be positive- violence is down and al-Sadr has fled to Iran).