|
Withdrawal causes us to get drawn back in – turns the aff
Juan Cole (Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, specializes in the middle east and southeast asia) April 2009 “Juan Cole: Obama's First Hundred Days in the Greater Middle East” http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/80251.html
Many US observers, who are withdrawal fundamentalists, do not understand that the advances made by the Iraqi army depend heavily on US logistical and air support, and that a precipitous withdrawal might well leave the country in chaos. They also don't understand that an Iraq in chaos would be unacceptable to the US and its regional allies, and would draw American troops right back in. Obama's measured withdrawal, which has the support of the Iraqi government, is a good compromise and has a 50/50 chance of success. The heavy-casualty bombings of recent weeks in Baghdad and Mosul are a security, not a military challege, and probably will not affect the timeline.
Withdrawal => Terrorism
Withdrawal guts US military morale and readiness—it only prolongs the war and breeds terrorism.
Ryan Mauro (national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC)). “The Consequences of Withdrawal from Iraq.” 5/7/2007 http://www.globalpolitician.com/22760-foreign-iraq
Senator John McCain, a former POW in Vietnam, said it best this week when he stated that “the only thing worse than a stressed military, is a broken and defeated military.” Withdrawal would mean the complete collapse of morale in the military and a reluctance to support a responsible military budget. Failing to support and fund our military leaves our troops without the armor they need and our political leaders without the option of force in dealing with foreign enemies. Advocates of a withdrawal think it will end the war, but it will not. The disastrous security situation in Iraq will lead to a terrorist sanctuary that the United States will then have to confront. Our uniformed men and women who came home the first time will have to enter again under much harsher and costlier conditions.
Their old terrorism defense doesn’t apply--US military withdrawal breeds a new generation of terrorism.
Ryan Mauro (national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC)). “The Consequences of Withdrawal from Iraq.” 5/7/2007 http://www.globalpolitician.com/22760-foreign-iraq
Terrorists worldwide will be emboldened. The American withdrawal from Somalia helped motivate Osama Bin Laden into thinking that he could attack us in the 1990s. An American withdrawal from the much greater and more important conflict in Iraq would surely inspire a new generation of terrorists. Additionally, terrorists could go to Iraq to find training, money, weapons and safe harbor. These recruits would then go on to attack targets throughout the world, including Western Europe and the United States. Rogue states, finding themselves strengthened, would be convinced that terrorists and insurgents are the way to defeat and deter America. An immediate withdrawal would cause these nations to increase their sponsorship of terrorist organizations
Decrease in US troops leads to global terrorism
Wallison 2005 (Peter J., resident fellow @ the American Enterprise Institute, National Review, “Bad, But Not the last straw”, October 17)
Even so, most thoughtful military and foreign-policy observers see a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as a catastrophe for U.S. world leadership and a huge victory for the jihadists. If the United States can be forced by terrorism to withdraw from Iraq, the lesson for the jihadists will be clear: Americans can also be forced by terrorism to withdraw from the rest of the world. That has always been bin Laden's goal; if terrorism seems to have caused us to withdraw from Iraq, that will engender terrorism here. In the face of this, conservatives and Republicans who are throwing in the towel on President Bush because of their disappointment over the Miers nomination should step back, take a deep breath, and consider what's ultimately at stake.
Terrorist will strike based upon the perception of US weakness
Juan Cole July 29 2004 “How Strong Do We Look?”, http://antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3204
He said, "Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness."
This statement is half right and half wrong. Some terrorist attacks are caused by the use of strength. For instance, the Shi'ites of southern Lebanon had positive feelings toward Israel before 1982. They were not very politically mobilized. Then the Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982 and occupied the South. They killed some 18,000 persons, 9,000 of them estimated to be innocent civilians. The Shi'ites of the South gradually turned against them and started hitting them to get them back out of their country. They formed Hizbullah and ultimately shelled Israel itself and engaged in terrorism in Europe and Argentina. So, Hizbullah terrorist attacks were certainly caused by Sharon's use of "strength."
On the other hand, a perception of weakness can invite terrorist attacks by ambitious and aggressive enemies. Osama bin Laden recites a litany of instances in which the United States abruptly withdrew when attacked, and takes comfort in the idea of the U.S. as a paper tiger. He instances Reagan's 1983 withdrawal from Beirut after the Marine barracks was bombed and Clinton's departure from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident. The lesson I take away from all this is that the US should not get involved in places that it may get thrown out of, because that projects an image of weakness and vulnerability to the country's enemies. There was no way the United States could possibly have maintained a presence in Lebanon in the early 1980s, and Reagan was foolish to put those Marines in there, and even more foolish to put them in without pylons around them to stop truck bombs. The country was embroiled in a civil war, and it would have taken a massive commitment of troops to make a difference. In the wake of the Vietnam failure, the American public would not have countenanced such a huge troop buildup. Likewise, Bush senior was foolish to send those troops to Somalia in the way he did (which became a poison pill for his successor, Bill Clinton).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
