December 7, 1941, a date which will always live in infamy for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
As a small child, I constructed a model of the USS Arizona. I was young and knew of its history only from books. Since then, I have learned life’s lessons of death. Come May 2006, I will be paying my tribute at the USS Arizona Memorial.
Howard Dean, failed presidential candidate and the chair of the DNC, has declared that the Americans have been defeated in Iraq.
Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
[…]
“I’ve seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, ‘just another year, just stay the course, we’ll have a victory.’ Well, we didn’t have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening.”
Dean says the Democrat position on the war is ‘coalescing,’ and is likely to include several proposals.
“I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years,” Dean said. “Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don’t belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don’t have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We’ve got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
Well, I’d like to respond to four aspects of this. First, as John Hinderaker at Power Line points out, defeatism was once frowned upon in American society, not trumpeted by the head of a major party. Second, I would really like an explanation of how a withdrawn force in a neighboring country is expected to combat the terrorist bastard Zarqawi while he wreaks mayhem in our wake in Iraq. This is nothing but a complete lack of a developed line of thought, thrown out for political expediency that deserves to backfire more that a gutteral Iowa scream. Third, as a former Guardsman and close buddy of a Guardsman currently returning from Iraq, I am disgusted by Dean’s patronizing characterization of the reserve components. I’d like to hear Dean try to sell that tripe to Lt. Col. Jeffrey Breor of the Texas Army National Guard’s 56th Brigade, returning from Iraq with tales of both the unit’s fine performance and progress on the ground. The Guard and Reserve don’t belong in a conflict like Iraq?!! I’ve got a little newsflash for the DNC chair: the Guard and Reserve go through the same training as members of the active service and are held to the same standards; the key difference in proficiency stems from training time after new troops return from their initial training and the accompanying unit cohesiveness. This is overcome to a large degree already, as the reserve units spend a substantial period uptraining before rotating to the sandbox. There is one substantial difference in National Guard training, and that is the one day a year spent on spent on riot control procedures, as the true base of former Governor Dean cannot be trusted to behave civilly in the political sphere. Oh yeah, before I forget, let’s not miss a chance to praise the brave troopers of the Kentucky Army National Guard’s 617th MP Company, who kicked ass while in Iraq.
My fourth point with Dean’s bold stance of being decidedly meek is that, while in line with the established mythologies of both Viet Nam and Iraq, it stands in stark contrast to the true lessons of history and the reality of the nature of the current Iraqi situation. Frederick W. Kagan addresses this painstakingly in his “Iraq Is Not Vietnam” piece (hat tip to Jeff Goldstein).
When american ground forces paused briefly during the march to Baghdad in 2003, critics of the war were quick to warn of a quagmire; an oblique reference to the Vietnam War. Virtually as soon as it became clear that the conflict in Iraq had become an insurgency, analogies to Vietnam began to proliferate. This development is not surprising. Critics have equated every significant American military undertaking since 1975 to Vietnam, and the fear of being trapped in a Vietnam-like war has led to the frequent demand that U.S. leaders develop not plans to win wars, but exit strategies, plans to get out of messes.
There is no question that the Vietnam War scarred the American psyche deeply, nor that it continues to influence American foreign policy and military strategy profoundly. CENTCOM’s strategy for the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq is an attempt to avoid making Vietnam-like mistakes. Proponents of other strategies, like combined action platoons or oil spot approaches, most frequently derive those programs from what they believe are the right lessons of Vietnam. It is becoming increasingly an article of faith that the insurgency in Vietnam is similar enough to the insurgency in Iraq that we can draw useful lessons from the one to apply to the other. This is not the case. The only thing the insurgencies in Iraq and Vietnam have in common is that in both cases American forces have fought revolutionaries. To make comparisons or draw lessons beyond that basic point misunderstands not only the particular historical cases, but also the value of studying history to draw lessons for the present.
Kagan goes on to look at the historical roots, composition, support and capabilities of the insurgencies we face in both Viet Nam and Iraq. The stark differences give lie to the supposedly authoritative but defeatist talk of Howard Dean. Kagan’s effort is somewhat lengthy, but pretty much worth every word. As an aside, my thoughts on exit strategies can be found here. I challenge anyone to provide a successfully executed war where an exit strategy was the guiding force and was followed to fruition.
Howard Dean has accepted defeat. The American military has achieved success after success. The Bush administration has remained steadfast in its policy that Iraq is a key piece in the war against radical Islamic terror and that we are succeeding and progressing on the ground, though they’ve done a poor job of propagating the news.
The American people will have to decide whether to move forward or find defeat after unprecedented success, a defeat that will reinforce unto our enemies the lessons they learned from Saigon ’75, Beirut ’84 and Somalia ’93 — bloody the Americans and they will cowardly run away, tail between the legs. And our children will have to live or die with that decision.
Yes, it is in the hands of the American people. However, it is only fair that they are given the full story to make that decision. Today, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the all-too-negative media to present the full story that the American people haven’t been given, opened schools and not just exploding cars.
As the United States wages its first war with widespread 24/7 news coverage, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged the media to ensure it’s telling the whole story about Iraq, not just focusing on events that make dramatic headlines.
Rumsfeld, speaking at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s campus here Dec. 5, said troops frequently ask him why the American people aren’t getting a more accurate picture of what’s happening in Iraq. They question why violence seems to get the heaviest coverage, while “good news” stories about successes tend to go unreported.
The secretary noted the media’s indispensable role in keeping people informed and holding the government to account. Many in the media have done “excellent reporting” in Iraq, and some have been killed in the process, he said.
“But it’s important also for the media to hold itself to account,” Rumsfeld told the group.
“We’ve arrived at a strange time in this country, where the worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world,” the secretary said. Often this reporting occurs with little or no context or scrutiny, let alone correction or accountability, even after the fact, he said. Speed appears to be more important than accuracy or context to some reporters, he said, and their reports can spread around the globe, regardless of their validity.
[…]
In May, rioting and several deaths resulted from what Rumsfeld called “a false and damaging” news story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In yet another instance, a recent New York Times editorial implied that the U.S. armed forces were using tactics Rumsfeld called “reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.”
Similarly, news reports that focus simply on terror attacks and bombings don’t paint an accurate picture or tell the whole story of what’s happening in Iraq, the secretary said.
“You couldn’t tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 Americans that were casualties over about 40 days … or explain the importance of (Gen. Ulysses S.) Grant’s push to Virginia just by noting the savagery of the battles, and they were savage,” Rumsfeld said.
Similarly, the secretary said, telling the story of what’s happening in Iraq by focusing only on how many Americans have died leaves much of the story untold. Just as important, he said, is the story of what those troops died for and what they lived for.
It is the resposibility of the American populace to decide between possible success and Dean’s failure. Rumsfeld is correct — it is only fair, both for my future children and the honor of our military’s courageous efforts and sacrifices, that the supposed American media paint a fair, full and accurate picture to provide Americans the information needed for their monumental decision.
The story of the most famous of maritime tragedies, the sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage, may be forced to undergo a rewrite because of a recent discovery.
Undersea explorers said Monday that the discovery of more wreckage from the Titanic suggests that the luxury liner broke into three sections — not two, as commonly thought — and thus sank faster than previously believed.
”The breakup and sinking of the Titanic has never been accurately depicted,” Parks Stephenson, a Titanic historian, said at a conference.
[…]
Undersea explorer Robert Ballard located the bulk of the wreck in 1985, at a depth of 13,000 feet. He declared that the ship had broken into two major sections, and that is the way the sinking was portrayed in the 1997 movie.
However, the latest expedition, sponsored by the History Channel, found two hull pieces lying about a third of a mile from the rest of the wreck. The explorers said the location of the wreckage indicates that the bottom came off the ship intact — constituting a third major piece — and later broke in two.
Ballard responded to the challenge to his twenty-year-old theory with the cool sense of objectivity that would make any historian or explorer proud.
”They found a fragment, big deal,” Ballard said. ”Am I surprised? No. When you go down there, there’s stuff all over the place. It hit an iceberg and it sank. Get over it.”
Perhaps, if this new theory holds water (sorry ’bout that, y’all), we can get a re-edit of James Cameron’s Titanic. This should certainly cut off a healthy chunk of the bloated 194 minutes of run time.
This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Below the Beltway. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.
Trust me, more hinges on this pending case than the future of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
The Supreme Court confronts a gay rights issue this week, in a case that asks whether law schools can bar military recruiters because of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Each fall recruiters of all types jam law schools seeking top students in job fairs, receptions and interview sessions.
Justices will decide whether universities that accept government money must accommodate the military even if the schools forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
It is the first time that the court has dealt with a gay-rights related case since a contentious 2003 ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex. In 2000, the court ruled that the Boy Scouts have the right to ban leaders who are openly gay.
The latest appeal pits the Pentagon against a group of law schools and professors. The justices hear arguments on Tuesday.
The government contends if it provides financial support to a college – with grants for research, for example – then in exchange it should be able to recruit “the very students whose education it has supported.” In this case, that means having the ability to recruit students, a tool made more essential since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Federal financial support of colleges tops $35 billion a year.
Law schools say they would welcome military recruiters if the Pentagon dropped its policy against openly gay personnel. Gay men and women may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
The outcome turns on the First Amendment and whether schools can be made to associate with military recruiters or promote their appearances on campus.
No one is advocating that the schools are being made to associate with any governmental policy; federal assistance can always be declined by an institution if federal recruiters, specifically military recruiters, are unwanted for any reason. That is the choice currently in the hands of the universities, who apparently want to continue to suck on the federal tit while arbitrarily dictating to the military how it should manage itself during its defense of our nation if it merely wants access to those suckling.
While the previous two gay-rights decisions mentioned in the article do not bode well for the government in this matter, it should be noted that, at least to my understanding, there is a long-standing history of rulings in favor of the restrictions on some constitutional rights by members of the military, especially in times of an all-voluntary force. That those same restrictions could be used to prevent the government from seeking members seems rather flawed, especially when one considers that the universities have an out (refuse money based on principles if, indeed, those principles are that strong) and any participation by individuals is not compulsory.
Still, the Supremes have disappointed me very badly and very recently, so this one’s a crap shoot.
I just thought I’d stall on any possible blogging tonight by throwing up a few links from some of the fine folk on my blogroll.
War on Islamic Terror Updates
First, the campaign in Iraq graphically compared to Viet Nam, courtesy Bastard Sword. No comparison. I may have to swipe … err … borrow this chart.
Second, Jay Tea at Wizbang! examines the bankruptcy of strategy in Iraq, but he isn’t talking about the good guys or President Bush. Instead, he’s nailing the insurgents and terrorists. Okay, yeah, there’s a swipe or two at the Democrats.
Third, In the Bullpen‘s Chad Evans points to a story that Iran may only be months away from atomic weapons. Well, that’s comforting.
Fourth, Mrs. Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette is asking for Christmastime support for our wounded soldiers via the very worthy Soldiers’ Angels.
2005 Weblog Awards
Finalists for the Wizbang‘s Bloggies, 2005 style, have been named and voting is open. No, Target Centermass is neither a finalist nor even a nominee (as far as I bothered to notice), and that’s quite understandable given the worthy blogs on the ballot.
Unsurprisingly, my favorite category is the Best Military Blog. John at finalist Argghhh!!! pays a brief, humble tribute to the competition and a few not on the ballot.
Eric of Eric’s Grumbles Before the Grave, founder of the Life, Liberty, Property community, almost sounds like a proud father listing the six members of the community that have been named finalists.
Also, the Llama Butchers, finalists for Best Culture/Gossip Blog, have started a rather interesting campaign.
Miscellaneous
Protein Wisdom‘s Jeff Goldstein waxes poetic, doing that haiku voodoo that only Jeff can do so well.
Air safety standards are being loosened, and many are justifiably not happy about it.
The government’s proposal to allow small scissors and some other sharp objects back onto airliners is causing an uproar among flight attendants, families of victims of the Sept. 11 hijackings and several lawmakers.
Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley on Friday outlined the proposal as part of a broader shift in airport security. The plan will allow airline passengers to carry scissors less than 4 inches long and wrenches and screwdrivers less than 7 inches long. The plan is scheduled to go into effect Dec. 22, just in time for the Christmas travel rush.
Hawley also revealed that there is intelligence suggesting that terrorists study the screening procedures at airports in order to evade them.
“We do have intelligence that terrorists do watch our screening process, it doesn’t matter how much they survey because it will be unpredictable and they will not know what to expect at any time,” he said.
Passengers should expect more randomness at security gates so would-be terrorists won’t know for sure what they will see. For example, an airport might require all passengers to remove their shoes one day but not the next.
“It is paramount to the security of our aviation system that terrorists not be able to know with certainty what screening procedures they will encounter at airports around the nation,” Hawley said. “By incorporating unpredictability into our procedures and eliminating low-threat items, we can better focus our efforts on stopping individuals who wish to do us harm.”
Yes, you want to use randomness to throw off potential terrorists. Here’s an idea: target likely terrorists. Yes, I advocate profiling. We are facing a global enemy, that is true, but that enemy has predominantly had certain identifying characteristics.
Among the items no longer prohibited from airliner cabins: scissors 4 inches or less, and tools such as screwdrivers, wrenches and pliers that are smaller than 7 inches.
Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said Thursday they intend to introduce a bill called the “Leave All Blades Behind Act” to preserve the current prohibition on sharp scissors, tools and knives in airliner cabins.
“On Sept. 11, we witnessed the devastation and death that can be perpetrated onboard a plane with commonly-used items like boxcutters, and TSA wisely took action to ban such sharp objects. Now is not the time to overturn this ban, since we know that Al Qaeda continues to put passenger plans near the top of its terrorist target list,” Markey said. “The Bush administration proposal is just asking the next Mohamed Atta to move from box cutters to scissors as the weapon that’s used in the passenger cabin of planes.”
Crowley noted that he lost his cousin, a former FDNY chief, on Sept. 11, “and the fact is that we are no safer today than we were 4 years ago.”
“Flight attendants and airline passengers put themselves at risk everyday. There are more effective ways of increasing efficiency without compromising security,” he added.
The TSA has said that small, sharp objects do not pose as much of as risk now that airplane cockpits have fortified doors.
Hawley has complained that airport screeners spend too much time confiscating small objects from innocent passengers. He wants them to focus instead on searching for what the TSA views as a more serious threat: improvised explosive devices.
While Hawley said Friday there is no intelligence suggesting IED attacks are imminent in the United States, there is significant concern this style of strike is not out of the question.
Airlines generally support the plan. So does the pilots’ largest union, the Air Line Pilots Association.
Bob Hesselbein, the union’s national security committee chairman, said pilots think it’s more important to focus on passengers’ intent rather than what they’re carrying.
“A Swiss army knife in the briefcase of a frequent flyer we know very well is a tool,” Hesselbein said. “A ballpoint pen in the hands of a terrorist is a weapon.”
Okay, there’s a logic to last last quote, but it’s a logic quickly overcome. The frequent flyer should know to adapt to the rules and remove his Swiss army knife from his carry-on baggage. The terrorist can find a variety of potential weapons — why expand the menu?
TSA screeners this year alone have confiscated 12.6 million prohibited items, including 3 million sharp objects, according to the Homeland Security Department.
They’ve also taken away 8.1 million lighters, the only item prohibited by law. Congress, concerned that terrorists would have an easier time igniting a bomb with a lighter than with matches, enacted the ban. It took effect April 14.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation Committee’s aviation panel, agrees with Hawley that screeners should be looking for explosives rather than small, sharp objects that could be used as weapons.
“You have a huge army of pilots that are now armed, you have significant numbers of federal air marshals, you have secure cockpit doors, you have an alert public,” Mica said. “Terrorists aren’t dumb, they can see what the weakness in the system is.”
More than 18,000 screeners have been trained on advanced explosives detection techniques, Mica said.
But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee’s aviation panel, objected to the policy shift. In a letter to Hawley, she wrote that the change “could undermine the progress we have made in securing our skies since the 9/11 attacks. Security demands vigilance; we cannot become complacent.”
Markey said the TSA is presenting the public a false choice. If there aren’t enough screeners to check for sharp objects and bombs, he said, then more screeners should be hired.
The Association of Flight Attendants supports Markey’s initiative, as does The Southwest Airlines flight attendants’ union, Transport Workers Local 556.
“Under no circumstance should potentially dangerous weapons be allowed onboard an aircraft,” said Patricia Friend, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA International president.
“I have not spoken to a flight attendant at any airline that isn’t outraged by this,” added Thom McDaniel, the president of the Southwest Airlines flight attendants’ union. “They want to focus more on explosives, but they’re not even mentioning that the biggest threat to commercial aviation right now is still the fact that most cargo is not screened.”
Justin Green is an attorney for the families of three flight attendants who died aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which Sept. 11 hijackers crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Two of the flight attendants, Bobbi Arestegui and Karen Martin, were stabbed by the terrorists. The third, Betty Ong, reported what was happening during the hijacking in a telephone call to authorities on the ground.
“The families are outraged that the TSA is planning on letting weapons back on board,” Green said.
As I have previously stated, so am I.
We cannot roll back the clock to a time we pretended we were safe, even with supposed cockpit security. Are those cockpits secure against blood being repeatedly shed outside while the pilots hear the screams? Are we certain that the doors are safe against tools allowed, along with anything missed? Can we get an update on the air marshall program to alleviate concerns about the relaxation of rules?
This is not a matter of constitutional liberties, as they are not involved; instead, it is a question of convenience during a matter of travel of choice, travel in which lives may be at stake.
The loosening of the Syrian hold on Lebanon has led to grisly findings.
Mass graves which were dug up in Lebanon over the weekend are believed to hold the bodies of Lebanese soldiers killed during the Civil War. The number of bodies is expected to reach a total of 40 as the Lebanese authorities continue to dig in the third and largest mass grave to be exhumed within a month. “Some of the bones in the graves are more than 20 years old,” said forensic expert Fouad Ayoub, who has been designated by the public prosecutor to officially investigate the latest mass grave in an onion farm on the Nabi Azir hilltop in Anjar. The graves are about one kilometer from the former headquarters of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon and are located in territory formerly occupied by Syrian troops.
Lebanese troops have been working since Friday using bulldozers and a team of forensic experts to exhume the remains of 28 human skeletons. The bodies, which were exhumed from two mass graves beside each other, had traces of underwear, clothes and military uniforms still attached to the bones.
Ayoub said DNA tests will be conducted on the remains and the results will be compared with a list of missing civilians and soldiers.
[…]
Some security officials have said that they could be Lebanese soldiers killed during an October 1990 Syrian military offensive against Lebanese Army units led by then interim-President Michel Aoun.
There has been no official response from the Syrian government. However, a statement on Syrian News Web site quoted an “informed Syrian source” as saying “the victims were part of 400 Lebanese and Palestinians whom Abu Nidal’s Fatah-Revolutionary Council had summarily executed in the Bekaa in the latter years of the Civil War between 1986 and 1991.”
Abu Nidal was then fighting with late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s Fatah mainstream faction and victims of their clashes were said “to have been buried in several locations in the Bekaa.”
This may be feasible, and the dirtnap-taking terrorist Nidal would be a great fall guy, but there are signs reported that point back to Syria.
The mayor of the nearby town of Majdel Anjar, who helped lead security forces to the graves, said he believed up to 40 bodies were buried in the area.
“These bodies have been buried near the shrine of Nabi Uzeir since 1993. I have known since 1999 but kept silent,” Shaaban al-Ajami told reports. He said he kept quiet out of “fear” of prosecution by the Syrian intelligence, which had a tight grip on Lebanon during its 29 years of tutelage.
“One of the skulls had the remains of a sock in it, which is proof of the torture tactics used by Syrian intelligence,” he said.
[…]
“This is the biggest proof that the crime is very big and touches the lives of hundreds of Lebanese families,” said Ghazi Aad, head of Support of Lebanese in Detention and Exile (SOLIDE).
Aad, who has been calling for an international probe into the case of the Lebanese detainees in Syrian jails, demanded a thorough international investigation into the mass graves and other killings allegedly carried out by Syrian occupation troops.
“This is a serious crime against humanity and hence I call upon the Lebanese government to react and hold an immediate session in Cabinet to discuss the discovery,” said Aad.
Human rights groups and families have said that they have evidence of more than 176 Lebanese detained in Syrian jails, many of whom have been there for more than a decade. Another 17,000 Lebanese remain unaccounted for since the 1975-90 Civil War.
Well, that certainly makes Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo seem like a blip at worst on the inhumane radar screen. I await, trembling in anticipation, for the weeks of screaming coverage from the New York Times.
Flexibility: A large general-purpose tent under which chaos, confusion and incompetency are kept well hidden.
—Creighton Abrams
Back in June, I blogged about red on red. That’s American military jargon for enemy fighting, intentional or incidental, among and between our opposing forces. In that post, I mentioned the obvious fact that colors play key roles in other areas, specifically naming gangs and American political demarcations. Well, digging into the latter, lets take a little look at some developing blue on blue.
First, I want to point out that the Democrats, as the party in opposition, have had two tremendous political advantages to date in their stances on the campaign in Iraq. Those advantages are as follows:
Unfortunately for the Democrat party, they have had some sizable hurdles to clear, hurdles that insist on cropping up again and again:
Those are certainly some complexities to overcome for a group that wishes to be viewed as pro-American, pro-military and pro-War on Terror. Those hurdles can only be managed if the advantages that I stated earlier carry the day.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP in the Senate decided to show a little spine and force the Dems to lay down their cards. Then, the administration decided to get just a little vocal about both plan and progress.
With just this slightest provocation, the Dems were forced on the defensive and the media was forced to cover the great big blue crawdad move, as Dem pols scattered in different directions and their weaknesses were exposed. Here’s some media coverage of the anarchy currently under the Dem banner.
Democrats divided over Iraq timetable
Democrats nationwide generally say that the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq but remain divided over how and when.
Like their party leaders in Washington, members of the Democratic National Committee offered a range of opinions Friday about the recent call from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran and strong military ally, for a complete pullout within six months.
“I think the presence of American troops are incendiary to all parties in Iraq,” said Robert Bell, who agreed with Murtha’s proposal. “I think eventually there’s going to be a civil war. It’s time for the Iraqis to take care of their own problems.”
The DNC was holding a three-day meeting in Phoenix.
[…]
Democrats seemed split over whether the party has been able to capitalize on problems nagging the administration, including the war in Iraq and federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
[…]
Gaetan DiGangi, a committee member from New Hampshire, said the Democrats shouldn’t take a mean-spirited approach in pointing out Bush’s failings.
“We are looking to offer something that’s an alternative, and I think we are moving towards that,” DiGangi said.
Democratic Lawmakers Splinter on Iraq (hat tip to Captain’s Quarters and its coverage of the article)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s embrace Wednesday of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq highlighted the Democratic Party’s fissures on war policy, putting the House’s top Democrat at odds with her second in command while upsetting a consensus developing in the Senate.
For months now, Democratic leaders have grown increasingly aggressive in their critiques of President Bush’s policies in Iraq but have been largely content to keep their own war strategies vague or under wraps. That ended Wednesday when Pelosi (D-Calif.) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, leaving only a much smaller rapid-reaction force in the region.
The move caught some in the party by surprise. It threw a wrench into a carefully calibrated Democratic theme emerging in the Senate that called for 2006 to be a “significant year of progress” in Iraq, with Iraqi security forces making measurable progress toward relieving U.S. troops of combat duties. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last month that “it’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government.”
What’s more, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi’s. “I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility,” he said.
Catering to all is a losing strategy
DEMOCRATS, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they’re being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush’s troubles in Iraq.
But it turns out they aren’t so clever after all. What they’ve come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it’s possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone.
That’s a shame. The Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes in Iraq — starting with the fact that it didn’t send enough troops, and didn’t provide adequate supervision for some of the troops it did send. Remember Abu Ghraib? This country could stand an honest and vigorous debate, not about how we got to this point but about where we go from here.
But this much is certain: If a debate comes, it’ll be no thanks to Democrats. The best they could dream up goes something like this: “We were hustled. Sure, we voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq, but we were misled. Not that we regret toppling Saddam Hussein. We only regret that we weren’t given all the necessary information to make a more informed decision.”
The “we were hustled” approach offers something for everyone. If you support the war, you can applaud Democrats for backing the president. If you oppose the war, you sympathize with them for being conned by what you’ve probably already decided is a devious bunch.
But Democrats are forgetting one crucial detail, something they should have learned from recent presidential defeats: Americans hate politicians who duck responsibility for their actions by relying on parsed phrasing and other word games.
Dems Split on Iraq War Approach
A day after his latest speech detailing progress in Iraq, Bush stood next to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who wants U.S. troop withdrawals to begin before the end of this year.
“You don’t need 160,000 people to be doing what we are doing in Iraq today. This is not World War II, this is not Korea, this is not Vietnam,” Kerry said after the White House ceremony commemorating the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
Kerry is using his Web site and billboards in New Hampshire and Indiana to push his proposal to bring 20,000 troops home before Christmas and “bring home most of our combat troops in 2006.” He seemed to contradict himself, however, when speaking with reporters Thursday at the White House.
“The truth is, yes, it is going to take a lot longer and many of us believe that, in fact, that goal is not the most realistic one in the short term, that you’re going to have a longer-term struggle in that regard. Now, what we need to do is provide a sufficient level of security and stability so that American forces can begin to come home,” Kerry said.
That is in essence what the president argued Wednesday and for the last two years. Reinforcing that the White House already had that in mind, spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that some troop withdrawals could come after the Dec. 15 election in Iraq.
“We fully expect, as the Pentagon has indicated, that we’re going to be able to reduce some of the troop levels that we increased heading into the elections after the elections take place,” McClellan said. “I think some have talked about how next year could be a period of significant transition.”
While that might seem to be what Kerry wants, the Massachusetts senator said he and his fellow Democrats are largely united in their opposition to Bush strategy.
“There is much greater agreement between all of the Democrats, then there is a difference between all of us,” Kerry said.
But Kerry’s assertion doesn’t follow the recent call for troop withdrawal in six months by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa
And the Democrats wonder why they are considered weak on national security? It’s not because anyone doubts their patriotism. It’s because a lot of people doubt their judgment and toughness.
As if to prove the skeptics right, Democrats have been stepping forth to renounce their previous support for the liberation of Iraq even as Iraqis prepare to vote in a general election. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, John Murtha — that’s quite a list of heavyweight flip-floppers.
[…]
There are some honorable exceptions to this defeatism — Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark have remained stalwart supporters of the war effort — but they are clearly in the minority of a party steadily drifting toward Howard Dean-George McGovern territory.
Just a few years ago, it seemed as if the Democrats had finally kicked the post-Vietnam, peace-at-any-price syndrome. Before the invasion of Iraq, leading Democrats sounded hawkish in demanding action to deal with what Kerry called the “particularly grievous threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. But it seems that they only wanted to do something if the cost would be minuscule. Now that the war has turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, the Democrats want to run up the white flag.
They are offering two excuses for their loss of will. First, they claim they were “misled into war” by a duplicitous administration. But it wasn’t George W. Bush who said, “I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons [of mass destruction] again.” It was Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998. As this example indicates, the warnings issued by Bush were virtually identical to those of his Democratic predecessor.
The Democrats’ other excuse is that they never imagined that Bush would bollix up post-invasion planning as badly as he did. It’s true that the president blundered, but it’s not as if things usually go smoothly in the chaos of conflict. In any case, it’s doubtful that the war would have been a cakewalk even if we had been better prepared. The Baathists and their jihadist allies were planning a ruthless terrorist campaign even before U.S. troops entered Iraq. Their calculation was that if they killed enough American soldiers, the American public would demand a pullout.
So far the terrorists’ plan seems to be working. Even most Republican senators are demanding a withdrawal strategy. But it is the Democrats who are stampeding toward the exits. Apparently the death of about 2,100 soldiers over the course of almost three years is more than they can bear. Good thing these were not the same Democrats who were running the country in 1944, or else they would have pulled out of France after the loss of 5,000 Allied servicemen on D-day.
Even as a self-proclaimed Reagan revolutionary, I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in every presidential election I was able to until 9/11. Yes, I voted Libertarian in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.
I voted for George Bush in 2004.
I cannot respect the Libertarian Party’s view of international realities, and I cannot believe for a moment that the bulk of today’s Democrats care more about the future hopes I hold for my possible children and grandchildren and the state of our republic than they do about their own temporary political gain.