the war in iraq is necessary until we finish it

John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States and a democrat , believed that "there are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction" (Kennedy 32). Much of America has formed the opinion that the "action" in Iraq is unwarranted. However, idleness is far too costly. America's presence in Iraq is necessary for the continued freedom, liberties, and safety of this nation. "Americans play to win at all times" (Patton) and like a dog, will fight when you "rattle their cage". Terrorists "rattled the cage of America" by attacking the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and in the face of such mortal danger diplomacy is not an option. Therefore, in response, America launched a counter attack on Afghanistan. However, when documents were found from Saddam's Rogue Regime in Iraq containing the information that nuclear weapons could be produced in as little as two months, America quickly realized that Afghanistan was not its only worry. With its potential to supply weapons of mass destruction to the enemy and continued refusal to abide U.N. resolutions, "Iraq became a dangerous player in the war on terror" (Rummler). Afghanistan is a blatant threat, and when a nuclear-armed and defiant Iraq chose to supply this threat, it became a hazard as well. These "enemies of freedom are not idle" (Bush par 22); thus, America cannot afford to be complacent nor idle. There are some Americans, however, that believe America's liberty would be better defended if Iraq was left alone. According to war antagonist, David Gaffen, it is those citizens who feel that "the only thing scarier than a nuclear-armed Iraq with Saddam Hussein at the helm is a nuclear-armed Iraq with nobody at the helm" (Gaffen par 19). Or in other words, it is the Iraq after Saddam Hussein that America will have trouble facing. Opponents to the war fear that the U.S. will not be able to fix a broken country with such deep religious divisions as Iraq. There are many who feel that America "hasn't demonstrated yet that it is willing to make the total sacrifice needed to commit the resources necessary to converting a [fractured] country… into a rocking, free-market place" (Gaffen par 9). This opinion is widely accepted even when America had sacrificed over 288 billion dollars and 133.5 million of its population after World War II to repair a shell shocked Europe, who had faced one of the most revolting dictators in history. If the U.S. sacrificed so much to restore an entire continent affected by one ambitious man, who is to say it isn't ready to mend a single country? How much worth can one life be when billions perish? What purpose will living serve when death is the only knowledge of life? According to Len Sherman, an expert of foreign affairs, "America has to fight a war in Iraq because [it] need[s] foreign oil to sustain… life" (Sherman par 1). Oil is the engine of economy and when oil is absent so is an economy. America's thriving economy is what keeps its people alive and so the U.S. cannot allow 60% of the world's oil supply to be under the control of a despot. Having control of that oil secures its free flow at market prices and gives America the upper hand on its enemies. That upper hand is too much to risk when "at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened" (Roosevelt par 1), and as Senator John McCain said, "we cannot afford to fail" (McCain par 18). Failure is not an option for those at war, and withdrawing from Iraq would mean the failure of our economy, country, and eventually, our lives. War is never easy, but Americans have always been ready to pay the price of freedom. Is the war in Iraq justified, and is it worth the costs America must pay? "That is something every American must answer for themselves" (Rummler). However, since being in Iraq there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil. To be free from terrorism is to have liberty and "they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" (Benjamin Franklin).