War apologists' logic dictates withdrawal

Some supporters for the Iraq aggression assure us that things are going swimmingly. That it's only months away from becoming the Garden of Eden again. All the homicide bombings are just a figment of the 'liberal' media's imagination. Iraqis would have water and electricity and security if not for Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Michael Moore. They suggest that having a piece of paper called a constitution and elections under foreign occupation make the place a model republic that Plato would be proud of.

People like this will lie to you and say that only peaceniks and inveterate Bush-haters think the war is going poorly. It's easy to laugh hysterically at this. Sometimes it's difficult to believe there are people who can be so willfully blind.

Sure, you might tell them that only 30% of the people opposed of the Iraq aggression beforehand and 49% voted against Bush in the 2004 election yet 62% (and rising) oppose the aggression now... so obviously it's more than just the president's and the war's natural opponents who have issues with the debacle. But such facts won't cure them of their delusions.

Just for a moment, however, let's take them at their word. Let's follow their analysis to its logical conclusion.

Iraq had elections. Iraq has a government. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has nascent security forces. If these things are true and everything else is going as peachily as we are being assured, then clearly it's time for US troops to pull out. Why else would we need to stay longer?

Iraq is home to the oldest civilization in the world. It doesn't need some relatively young nation holding its hand on governance ad infinitum. They have their constitution, their government, their elections, their security forces. Let them run their own country unimpeded by Uncle Sam.

If things are going as well as the apologists tell us, then this is 'Mission Accomplished.' Why, then, do they tell us that this is 'Cut and Run'?