U.S. Has No Colonial Ambitions in Iraq

If you're a registered FOX Fan, you can now watch My Word in Our "Screening Room"! If you haven't signed up yet, don't waste another minute. Click here for access to premium content.

My conservative friend Jim Pinkerton is worried about the war, especially what comes after. Jim is one of those guys who actually reads history instead of watching it on the History Channel, and he brings up some good points for all of us to ponder.

The Muslim Brotherhood — one of the most radical Islamsist groups — started in the 1920s in an effort to get foreign occupiers out of Muslim lands.

The Turks have been subject to the get-out insurrections, and so have the French and the British, so Jim's point is: why would we want to join that Bad-News-Nears conga line?

The answer is that we don't. We don't have colonial ambitions in Iraq. What we want to do is get Saddam Hussein out, hang around just long enough to make sure the country is up and running again and that  someone is chosen by the people is in charge.

How long should that take? I don't know, but I do think two years is a little long. A year might be a little long. How long were Americans policing the streets in Afghanistan? Though we are still there, we're chasing Al Qaeda around the mountains, not directing traffic in Kabul.

My only point in all this is that we should be quick in the war and quick in the apres-war. There's no reason to leave Americans standing around Baghdad just waiting for a sniper to take a shot.

I still like Colin Powell's offer that if Hussein steps down, there will be no war. That's as simple as it could possibly get. We don't really care how he leaves — upright or feet first.

What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at myword@foxnews.com. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.

Looking for some previous My Word columns?
  Click here!