Mitt Romney stated the following in regards to the war against Jihad, "The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."
The argument to this thinking, as held by the likes of the Democrats and some Republicans, has been that we have no business being in Iraq, but since we're there we shouldn't try to force Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds under one roof. Three separate and distinct countries should be created.
However, there are a few problems with this type of thinking. For one, the true instigator of instability in the entire region, as well as in the world, is overlooked. The great instigator is radical Jihadism. This movement is headed up by very big money, and recognizes no borders. So, whether there are three new perimeters or one, Jihadists will cross that line and continue their works of killing.
Secondly, the problem with Democrat's thinking is that they assume seculars are in short supply in Iraq. They propose that there is no hope for democracy due to the lack of democratic thinkers in that region. Once again, they fail to consider the true enemy. The true enemy isn't necessarily civil hatred, but, is more terrorist opportunism with instability.
There is one crucial fact hidden by the media, which is this: there are Iraqis struggling, pondering, and working on the issues at hand. These Iraqi's are going through the thought processes indicative of a developing democracy.
The following are words from one Iraqi man who has great interest and knowledge of the situation in his country. Unfortunately, too few of these folks are heard from:
I would love to write, for you, an article about the situation (in Iraq) and I will do that. Democracy, which was brought by americans to Iraq, is the greatest idea for humans on the earth because it was for all the people, not just Iraqis. The plan shouldent be the way it was Presented. Bush gave Malike alot of time. He shouldn't have, because it is our lives and Americans lives where going in vain while Maliki was doing negative things..
There are 2 choices, as I think, in Presedent Bush's mind.
1.Cancelling Maliki Goverment In Iraq along with the Parliment and starting with temporary goverment of Sunnies and Sheaa and Kurdish from People in the middle; better with no relations in any party and make these guys deciding the new ministers. All and all not from religion parties especially the defence and interior. There should be very hard punishment to those who carry weapons whatever he is. I want you to know that the Iraqi personality is follower to the circumstances.
This means we are immature for democracy. We need more time.
2 .the other option is doing the plan depending on Maliki, because he is the man that came by democracy. The first option will put Bush under all the pressures, that he made, all that for democracy. If he cancels his goals that will cause the Republicans to be erased from the American history forever. But with the 2nd option, it will be disaster, we need the time, the time is not with us. Iraq will be a blood lake in the future and that will make the republican lose too. So anyway the republicans will lose because the urgent government need at less 2 years and by this time the elections will be up in the USA and that will cause the disaster to the republicans. But this is the only solution as I believe."
(name withheld for security purposes)
Iraq may very well be "immature for democracy" but it certainly is not unfit for democracy. An American on the ground in iraq describes a need to understand the mission and be more committed to it, both here in the states and on the ground in Iraq. In this letter to home, he explains:
"The biggest problem here in Iraq is not the number of folks, but that many aren't doing anything. Many people have let the President down. If more troops means more of the same, it probably won't help. What Mitt should do is demonstrate the kind of leadership that would encourage the folks that are here to understand the mission better and be more commited, then more troops would help."
He goes on to say, "The Dems can whine all they want, and criticize and call names, but unless they have a better plan and extend the leadership to get it accomplished the Republicans will stay in the lead. The military may be more inclined to follow McCain, but I wonder if the public will. The person that can explain, persuade and lead will be the next President. "
(name withheld for security purposes)
This may very well be the most important line from the above, "If more troops means more of the same, it probably won't help."
This is where John McCain, though a better candidate then Hillary Clinton, is dead wrong, for he believes more troops should be sent First, we must clean up our act on the ground. Iraqi's must believe we are there for the right reasons. Here is why:
1. Iraqi confidence in the United States must not wane.
2. Iraqis must look to the United States for an example.
3. Iraqis must not turn to the Jihadists
Mitt Romney has sounded a message that will, hopefully, sink deep into the hearts of Americans and Iraqis alike; it will tie together the support of the American people with the confidence of the Iraqi public. He stated, "The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a theocracy."
Both Americans and Iraqis alike, have come to understand the sting and devastation imposed by violent Jihadism, for we are two nations struggling against the same enemy. He who understands this important concept should be our next president, which is why I will vote for Mitt Romney.