Jun 25 2006

Iraq And The Election

Published by at 9:37 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Real Clear Politics has a load of good pieces up today discussing the Iraq war – though, we are not at war with Iraq so I find this misnomer most of the problem with the current debate. We have an allied people who we freed from tyranny and brutal oppression we are trying to protect as they stand up a peaceful country who will aid us in defeating Islamo Fascism and Al Qaeda. We are at war with Al Qaeda. Zarqawi and Zawahiri and Bin Laden have said as much, and the battle field is protecting our new allies in Iraq. The war is not with Iraqis.

This is important to keep in mind when someone discusses ‘redeployment’, because the implications is America running away from allies and potential friends. Not running away from a battlefield that is too messy. How many battlefields have open markets and cable TV and internet cafe’s? There is a civilized society trying to defeat brutal, blood thirsty hooligans. Reminds me more of Chicago during the reign of the mobsters than a war zone.

Anyway, one of the best pieces out there is in the New York Daily News by Michael Goodwin, a career journalist and reporter. He has some very pointed words for the ridiculous stunt the Democrats played on themselves with the votes to withdraw (redeploy, runaway, cut and run, leave the side of our allies) from Iraq:

Of the many Democrats running for President, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Once again, Bush’s flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness. Dems hate to be accused of “cutting and running,” but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a “redeployment” within a year. C’mon – redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

An surrender from what? The truth is somewhere around half the deaths in Iraq are combat deaths, the others are due to the normal accidents that occur in any force deployed for any reason – including piece keeping, training or providing emergency aid. The stakes are high, but with respect to other high stake actions this country has taken, so far the death toll has been remarkably limited. Each death is a personal tragedy, and we can all feel compassion and sorrow for those lost.

But if we fear that actions may result in death, why get out of bed? Why should I drive around the DC beltway which has a huge accident and injury toll (especially in past years). Why should we fly into space to the Moon? Why should we sky dive, race cars, climb cliffs? These actions put us at risk. Some action risk a few (car racing), other risk great numbers (everyday commuting). But we still do them. We do not feel the need to just stop everyone from travelling when a family is killed on the highway. The crass political opportunism of the Democrats poll tested ideas is stunning. As Goodwin points out:

But it’s bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we’re leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we’re leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation’s helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be President must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don’t have it shouldn’t apply.

This is an enlightening piece, in that someone who is clearly not a Bush supporter is not ready to hand over this country to a bunch of scared, spineless opportunists. And we all have to realize Bush never promised a cake walk. You can read his quotes from day one on how this would be a long, hard effort that would have set backs and successes and go on well past is his presidency. He has been resolute because he has not been surprised or unnerved. He knew what this entailed.

Unlike people like Kerry who vote based on pure political judgement of how many votes he can get. When the priority is not America, but personnal career, it is amazing how many decisions can be made so the many suffer for the benefit of the one. There are no leaders for 2008 on the left, and sadly few on the right as well. But no matter what, we must complete what we started in Iraq – or lose more than anyone can imagine.

Addendum: Bush said it best in

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Iraq And The Election”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    Excellent write up, it’s all politics for most of them. Yes, I well remember Pres. Bush telling it was going to be long and hard. As far as leaders on the right, one that seems apparent is George Allen.

  2. generationfixit says:

    Wonderful and absolutely the most coherant observation yet.

    After reading your post it occured to me that the proper analogy for the Democrats position on Iraq is …. ABORTING IRAQ!

    It is the perfect phrase. They don’t want the responsibility and any hardship that is involved in getting everythign right is not worth the price. This actually would be the version of a LATE-TERM ABORTION because they have come this far only to give up!

  3. Terrye says:

    I agree that Bush has the gene. But by God he is not as arrogant as Kerry, who does not have the gene.

  4. Rob says:

    I have read a lot of WWII history, now it is called “the good war”, but back then it was first a gathering storm of ruthless dictators , a period of denial and looking away from reality, and then a grind through setbacks and twofaced allies ( I am thinking of the French) to final victory. There were ankle-biters and defeatists a plenty in the beginning. Ambassador Kennedy (Johns father) tried to sell the British down the river, advising not supporting them in their resistance to Hitler.
    But America stayed the course then and must stay the course now.