Thoughts of a soldier

Danjel Bout, aka "Thunder6", blogs from Iraq on 365 and a wakeup. His most recent post ends with this thought:

Our country has drawn a line in the sand, and committed her forces to allowing Iraq to choose her own destiny. If we turn our back on that solemn pledge we not only dishonor the memory of the troops that sealed this promise with their very lifeblood, we embolden the jihadists bent on destroying everything we stand for. Do I want to melt under the blistering sun day in and day out? No. Do I want to shuffle off this mortal coil in a foreign land? Again no. Did I want to leave my beautiful bride? A thousand times no. But in the end it comes down to this. I would rather see this through to the end and spend the rest of my days in peace - then leave this country before the mission is through and have these same jihadists attack the fertile soil of home.

The standard line from the left is that the war in Iraq has no connection to the war on terror; worse, that it is a distraction. I believe, as do many others, that in fact the war in Iraq is a key part of the only viable strategy anyone has put forth to actually win the war on terror. One element of that strategy is to engage the enemy (that would be the terrorists) somewhere — anywhere — other than in the United States. For some reason, France comes right to mind, but never mind that <smile>.

It's interesting to see how a soldier in Iraq views this issue that seems to be a bright line of division between the liberal and conservative politics here at home. Danjel comes down very clearly on the conservative side — despite the personal risk and impact. Since this is a position I agree with, I (of course!) find much to admire in this.

But I wonder what the moonbats would make of it?