Who are we listening to?

Many in America, especially the liberal elite, feel that America needs to become more like western Europe. That is a country that embraces social and fiscal liberalism.

That means a country that embraces a homosexual agenda, a country with easy abortion and euthanasia laws. It means a country that denies it's religious history. It means a country that's weekly church attendance dips to 10% or less.

And it means a country that is ineffective in international affairs. Most European leaders wish America out of any affairs in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic nominee for the Presidency agrees with many of these same foreign policy ideas.

I have a friend that completed his second trip to Afghanistan. He didn't go as part of the military, he went with the best of purposes, the help the less fortunate. He didn't spend his time on the military base but on the streets and the university of Kabul. He was teaching and talking and listening to the Afghans, to Turks, and to Iraqis. And what he came back with was a surprising fact: most of the people he visited with don't want America to leave. That includes again, Afghans, Turks, and Iraqis. Stop, go back and read that again. Contrary to what the media may report or what politicians may say, most want America in country. They feel safer, and know that if America leaves without a proper leadership and government established, dictatorships will rise up and things will go back to the way they were before, weather it be the Taliban or a Saddam clone.

Senator Obama has laid out a plan that would pull America out of Iraq within 16 months. He has said he wants to focus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda, but what about al Qaeda Iraq, which despite his claims to the contrary, were in place before we ever started this current war effort.

Am I disappointed by the way the war in Iraq has gone? Sure I think most of us wanted an easy and quick war, similar to Gulf War 1 and I think most of us thought that was going to happen with the quick take over of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam. We weren't, and our government, wasn't prepared for the presence of insurgents, of al Qaeda Iraq, and many other things. But the fact is, if we leave without a stable government in place, things will never change in the Middle East.

Honestly, we should, and probably will, always have a constant presence in the Middle East, we've had a base in Germany since the late 40s and the end of World War 2, we've had Guantanamo Bay since the 60s. I'm not advocating a US military presence that acts as a policing force, but rather a base that is there and established to protect what we have accomplished there.

A further look at history reveals that we also cannot leave a country in the lurch. In the 1980s a Texas congressman named Charlie Wilson was responsible for funneling millions of dollars to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan in their effort to get rid of the Soviet Union's invading army. After the Afghan rebels were successful, Congressman Wilson wanted to continue to funnel the same, if not more money, into Afghanistan in order to rebuild the country. Our Republican President and our Democratic Congress did not feel the same way and our money stopped. Schools and hospitals, and many things that could have benefited Afghanistan never came to fruition and made it an easy access point for al Qadea and the Taliban to establish themselves.

My fear is that if we pull out of Iraq without significantly rebuilding the government and the people then we'll allow another Saddam in office.

So who are we listening to and who should we be listening to, European intellectuals who have little to no first hand experience in Middle Eastern affairs or the common people who live and breathe in the Middle East every day.