Posted by William Neikirk at 1:32 p.m. CDT
Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, knows how to speak colorfully. And on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, his words over the weekend go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iraq and terrorism.
In a Sunday speech at the College of Charleston, he said, "I know Iraq is a mess and we have screwed up seven ways from Sunday. We underestimated how hard it would be. But the fundamental idea is still correct. If we back out of this fight, your children and grandchildren will never know peace."
Graham could not have done a better job of expressing the sentiments of President Bush and his administration--that the stakes in Iraq are too high for us to withdraw. But the opposite of that argument seems a little strained--that if we stay in the fight and prevail, our children and grandchildren would know peace.
Yet if one listens to the president and his top advisers closely, there is no guarantee that a victory in Iraq would result in an end to terrorism in the world. It is not confined to one country. Just ask Great Britain, Egypt, Spain or Indonesia. Some, including many Democrats, have made the argument that continued war in Iraq will only breed more terrorists. There is heated debate among the parties over who is right about the war.
Graham's comment raised a broader question: Will our children or grandchildren ever know peace again in a world where terrorism has been set loose? We have lived through many wars in our history. But they have a pattern: They start, proceed, and then come to an end. And then there is peace.
With terrorism, there is always the fear of being hit. And sooner or later, there will be a terrible act somewhere in the world that exacerbates these fears and makes us aware that there is no peace when we observe our own vulnerabilities to a terrorist attack.
No peace. That seems to be a fundamental fact of our national life and our politics for the foreseeable future.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Without doubt the most accurate and honest comment I've read from either side so far.
Posted by: OHCD | September 11, 2006 1:46 PM
Senator Graham merely notes what should be obvious to anyone who studies history--in the thousands of years of recorded history, it's hard to find even one year of actual peace in the world. There will, sadly, always be muggers trying to rob you on the streets, just as there will always be some abroad who wish to attack western civiliazation and Americans. In our streets, we have police ready and willing to use force, to deter and if necessary shoot the muggers. Similarly, any US president must depend on our army--not group hugs, singing "kumbaya", or empty UN resolutions--to protect the US.
Posted by: bruce | September 11, 2006 1:56 PM
Graham could not have done a better job of expressing the sentiments of President Bush and his administration--that the stakes in Iraq are too high for us to withdraw. But the opposite of that argument seems a little strained--that if we stay in the fight and prevail, our children and grandchildren would know peace.
---
It "seems a little strained" because it's make-believe, kind of like "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Or the Santy Clawz story. If we "fight and prevail" without addressing the underlying sources of antagonism, future conflicts are a certainty.
Beyond that, perhaps it's appropriate to recognize that there is no lesser authority on the subject of I-Rack than the current gang of Republicants. Their past predictions have proven uniformly incorrect. It's ok for the "liberal media" to point out that these war mongering statements come from people that lack even a shred of credibility on the subject. Not holding my breath on that one...
Posted by: a blinkin | September 11, 2006 2:18 PM
For the right who need to learn the truth
Navy Times
http://www.navytimes.com/print.php?f=292925-2091485.php
Grades on Republicans on Veterans issues Failed
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004044M
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 11, 2006 2:45 PM
You have to understand that the Neoconservative philosophy says that war is the natural state of man.
So, actually, we will never know peace either way.
According to the philosphy subscribed to by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, we will always be at war.
(Most Neocons fail to mention that, huh?)
Posted by: bb | September 12, 2006 7:37 AM
Of course, you need to fight where there is a threat, or where the nation's vital interest is involved.
But to fight an optional war under the VERY DUBIOUS assumption that Democracy stops terrorism is ridiculous to the extreme.
And, to take that further, and claim that the only way to stop terrorism is to "democratize" an entire region of the world is folly.
And, after all that, to ignore the enemy who attacked you in the first place--and to approve deals that your "ally" is cutting with them to give them safe haven--is just madness.
(Personally, I think they should just divide Iraq into three regions--for the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, with some kind of oil revenue sharing deal to keep the Sunnis on board--then go fight the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who are getting stronger by the day.)
Posted by: bob | September 12, 2006 7:49 AM
Dale Peters:
Your link to the Navytimes.com story doesn't work. Can you go to their site and post a working link please? Many of us would like to read the story that you are referring us to.
Thanks.
Posted by: BC | September 12, 2006 11:04 AM
There would be peace if the Islamo Facist didn't blow-up barracks in Beruit and Saudi Arabia, blow a hole in the USS Cole, blow the WTC up twice, blow-up acouple of embasseys in Africa, ....
Look at the root cause of this war - it is the crazy islamo facists.
Posted by: Terry | September 12, 2006 9:15 PM