Several letters have appeared in the Roundup from those advocating the U.S. immediately leave Iraq.
We are dealing with an enemy that vows never to disengage. If we pack up and come home from Iraq they will consolidate their strength and we will face more Sept. 11 attacks on our soil.
So far, our aggressive pursuit has kept at bay the terrorists who, given the chance, would kill our "infidel" children. Leaving is clearly not a viable option. We can leave when the Iraqi forces are able to maintain order and continue the pursuit of terrorists in Iraq.
One province has already been turned over with more to follow.
These letters often say the war is illegal and immoral. It is legal when Congress provides the money and approval, which they have. Saddam shot at our planes over the "no-fly zone," which is an act of war.
From the morality side, I cannot see how it is moral to leave in office a dictator who killed his own people with chemicals (WMD), tossed his enemies (alive) into industrial shredders and filled up mass graves.
I spoke with a sergeant home on leave from the 101st Airborne and he said people constantly came up to him and shook his hand and thanked him for being there. Hardly sounds immoral to me.
As to the charge that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda, just refer to "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes. Vice President Cheney called it the most informed book on the subject. There was heavy linkage.
We have had two regime changes (Afghanistan and Iraq) and one regime behavior change (Libya). More will follow as the core developed nations bring the "gap" nations (characterized by poverty, dictatorial leadership and often theocratic governments) into the developed fold. It is a long term, global strategy as outlined in books such as "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett.
Again, if we disengage we will simply be passing the problem to a later date.
Thomas Paine said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
Bill Suphan, Strawberry