Mr. Dreyfuss advises: "Make no mistake: Iraq will be a difficult problem for Obama. Bush has handed him a country still perched on the brink of civil war, and it could flare up again at any moment. If violence grows, Obama may pay a political price, but get out he must."
Given such a startement, what is the logic behind pulling out quickly on a strict timetable, not tied to conditions? If we follow Mr. Drufuss, would civil war not follow? Is our exit at any cost the moral choice for our nation?
We need to finish the job and leave Iraq only when stability is assured. That is precisely our moral obligation.
As Mr. Dreyfuss also noted, most Democrats voted for the war. The majority indeed supported our president early on. Most egregiously, they did it when it seemed politically expedient just before the mid-term elections.
Is the "political price" Mr. Obama may pay if violence increases worth wasting the lives of brave American soldiers?
A premature exit would make Mr. Obama responsible for instability in the region, more violence and more death. Indeed, we may find ourselves back in Iraq under worse conditions.
I find Mr. Dreyfuss's position morally void. I hope our new president reverses his campign rhetoric and takes no heed of such immoral and dangerous nonsense.
Nov 16 2008 - 12:43pm