On the War...

The War in Iraq has been an interesting topic for me, as well as a journey of sentiment. When we first decided to go over there (my Junior year of high school), I was unsure how I felt about it. While I didn't like the idea of the U.S. going in there and being the big, bad American heroes we tend to be, I did feel better that Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, subjecting his people to the atrocities that had plagued that country for years. My uncertainty of how I stood on the war grew to support, although I'm not sure what particularly sparked it. Perhaps it was via discussions with friends of the Muslim faith who taught me a little more more about Islam. I do know that my discussions with soldiers who had spent time over there definitely helped me to see the other side of what the media portrayed.

Then I started witnessing other things: like a soldier who had just returned from his second tour not really supporting the war, and then having people point out that we aren't wanted there. I took it to heart, and decided that my friends who had served there didn't have issues because they didn't see combat and they didn't have injuries. And we weren't wanted there, right? It still didn't settle with me, because so many of my friends who had served there told me that our soldiers are loved by the civilians, especially the kids.

So I've been back at square one, and finally have been formulating an opinion once again. What I've come up with is this:

1. The liberals have always felt that those who are better off should support those who aren't. They are two-faced in this agenda, however, in that the better off means "the wealthy" and those who aren't are "the poor." What about defining that with a more encompassing definition, such as the better off literally as those who are better off, whether by means of financial or just way of life, including freedom? What about defining those who are worse off as not just poor, but hungry and weak and in bondage? And what about saying that all of these people, both better off and worse off, aren't just American citizens, but applying those terms to the whole world?

2. All of that being said, because I am more moderate, I don't believe in a free lunch. I don't get one, and neither should anyone else. While my opinions on the sad state of our welfare program in the U.S. are enough to fill 20 blog posts, I can say that I am willing to help those who literally cannot help themselves. It becomes a totally different story when they can help themselves, and they just aren't willing to do so. I think the same goes for my analogy in No. 1: the people in Iraq literally could not help themselves in 2002. They were under the regime of a powerful dictator and unable to fight for the freedoms they deserve. That dictator is no longer in power, and it has been several years of instability. I know so many people have said that these people don't like democracy and prefer to have someone in ultimate power, but I don't think that is true. No one is happy when they have no agency.

3. Finally, from No. 1 and 2, my opinion is this: it is time to start the transition and allow the Iraqi people to decide for themselves. After 6 years, I think it is time that we really move the responsibility for their way of life onto their shoulders. And I think that pulling out is the right move. Both McCain and Obama support a withdrawal, and I commend them both for that; however, Obama saying that it was a mistake? I'm sorry, but I just don't view it as a mistake.

My dad sent this link to me today. While this does blatantly support Senator McCain, I think the more important aspect is the message that it sends about the War.