Should We "Stay And Fight" Or "Cut And Run?"

Since joining the Homespun Bloggers, I have not participated like I have done with Alliance Assignments. And that's not right. So I'm going to try to correct that. To that end, I decided that, no matter what, I'd write about this week's topic.

This week's question is about the War on Terror:

Are we making any progress? Is this part of the war winnable? Should we "stay and fight" or "cut and run?"

It seems that many bloggers have addressed the question regarding the winnability of the War on Terror lately, but indirectly. They have taken up the issue of Karl Rove's statements regarding conservative and liberal attitudes and responses to the attacks on this country. In case you haven't read his statements, here they in the Washington Post, and here's the portion that has caught most of the attention:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to... submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the... terrorist attacks against the United States."

But Karl Rove isn't the subject. The winnability of the War on Terror is. But I see a connection. The statements by Rove are from the mindset that the war is winnable. And, to me, if you see the war as winnable, you would take the attitude to "prepare for war" ... and go all out to win it.

We can win this war. And we will win this war. Because we can't afford to lose this war.

I don't think we will lose, and I don't think most on the left want us to lose, but they don't like the way we're fighting it.

Too damn bad. We're fighting it in the way it has to be fought. It's not possible to fight a nice war. When Sherman said "War is Hell," he was right. And he knew what he was talking about. He brought Hell to Georgia when he marched through the state and destroyed my ancestors homes. And, no, they weren't slave owners. They were poor White farmers trying to survive in a war-torn country. And Sherman's troops, according to my great-grandmother, took everything they could and destroyed what was left.

War is Hell.

But, in order to win the war, Sherman did what he had to do. And my family suffered because of it.

War is Hell.

We won the war in Iraq. Yes, that war is over. We're now fighting foreign mercinaries who want the new Iraq to fail. They don't care whether or not the U.S. is there. There will be violent opposition to the Iraq government long after the U.S. leaves. But the U.S. needs to give the new government everything we can to help them be in a position to succeed. We did that in Japan. We did that in Germany. We're doing it in Iraq.

But, though the war in Iraq is won, the War on Terror continues. And it will continue for years. Long after George W. Bush has left office. And perhaps long after a Democrat sits in the White House (I'm thinking in 2012). This war won't end soon. But it will end. I might not be here to see it, but it will end. And we will win.

And why must we fight this war? In case you forgot, they are trying to kill us. Me. You. My children. Your children. My grandchildren ... you get the idea, don't you? They want us all dead.

And so, we must fight this war. And it will be Hell. But we will win this war.

---

Cross-posted at Vince Aut Morire.