Saturday, February 17, 2007
Rebuke of Bush in Iraq
The House rebuked Bush's plan for the troop surge and the Senate, for the moment, has failed to do so. My largest apprehension in voting for Bush in 2000 was that he would find a reason to invade Iraq to finish his father's war. 9/11 gave him an easy reason.
At the time Congress overwhelmingly supported the invasion. Now that it has cost real lives and lasted longer than a mini-series, multitudes have changed their position. If a person honestly changes their position on an issue, I have no problem with it. The question is, "Do politicians ever honestly change their positions?"
For several years now Democrats have screamed that they were mislead, didn't have good information, etc. I don't buy it. Additionally, if they are so easily mislead, they don't need to be in positions of leadership because then the positions become positions of misleadership.
The resolutions are misleadership. "What to do in Iraq" is a legitimate and serious question. I believe the Bush administration grossly underestimated the culture of violence and how acceptance of death and fighting many in the Mid-East. But public statements by Congress that bring potential harm or death to our troops are ill advised.
Insurgents and terrorists will be encouraged and emboldened by the House's action. They know they only have to hang on a little while longer and victory is theirs without winning a single battle.
While the Democrats, and a few Republicans, bemoan the death and dying, their actions may well bring about more. How nice it would have been if our politicians could work together, in a way that does not further endanger us and damage our country, to find solution to this problem.
But, on the other hand, it's all about showboating for the next presidential election. Congress doesn't care if millions of illegal immigrants enter our country, taking over property and jobs that would belong to legal citizens. Why should they care if a few more troops die or we are more susceptible to terrorist attacks.
At the time Congress overwhelmingly supported the invasion. Now that it has cost real lives and lasted longer than a mini-series, multitudes have changed their position. If a person honestly changes their position on an issue, I have no problem with it. The question is, "Do politicians ever honestly change their positions?"
For several years now Democrats have screamed that they were mislead, didn't have good information, etc. I don't buy it. Additionally, if they are so easily mislead, they don't need to be in positions of leadership because then the positions become positions of misleadership.
The resolutions are misleadership. "What to do in Iraq" is a legitimate and serious question. I believe the Bush administration grossly underestimated the culture of violence and how acceptance of death and fighting many in the Mid-East. But public statements by Congress that bring potential harm or death to our troops are ill advised.
Insurgents and terrorists will be encouraged and emboldened by the House's action. They know they only have to hang on a little while longer and victory is theirs without winning a single battle.
While the Democrats, and a few Republicans, bemoan the death and dying, their actions may well bring about more. How nice it would have been if our politicians could work together, in a way that does not further endanger us and damage our country, to find solution to this problem.
But, on the other hand, it's all about showboating for the next presidential election. Congress doesn't care if millions of illegal immigrants enter our country, taking over property and jobs that would belong to legal citizens. Why should they care if a few more troops die or we are more susceptible to terrorist attacks.
Comments:
<< Home
While I would agree wholeheartedly that the measure is little more than showboating (the answering of non-real strategy with additional non-binding resolutions). I just don't think it emboldens the enemy.
The reason I think that is the law of diminishing returns. The enemy is not emboldened by the fact that our legislature and rhetoric or even public debate. But they are emboldened that they have been able to hold out against the Americans for this long already.
If you count the Iraq war as 2003-present: at this point in the War Between the States and WWII, the enemies the United States was facing did not have major cities left, food to feed themselves, means to transport thier troops or shoes.
That will demoralize an enemy - a show of force big enough to demonstrate resolve.
Sending 20K additional troops is not enough to do what needs to be done. Saying that we disagree with sending 20K troops is also not what needs to be done. Neither the President nor the legislature are ready to make serious decisions on the Iraq question, which is dissapointing at best, tragic at worst (for consequences you mention).
At this point, we have two options, both of which require political courage to make.
The reason I think that is the law of diminishing returns. The enemy is not emboldened by the fact that our legislature and rhetoric or even public debate. But they are emboldened that they have been able to hold out against the Americans for this long already.
If you count the Iraq war as 2003-present: at this point in the War Between the States and WWII, the enemies the United States was facing did not have major cities left, food to feed themselves, means to transport thier troops or shoes.
That will demoralize an enemy - a show of force big enough to demonstrate resolve.
Sending 20K additional troops is not enough to do what needs to be done. Saying that we disagree with sending 20K troops is also not what needs to be done. Neither the President nor the legislature are ready to make serious decisions on the Iraq question, which is dissapointing at best, tragic at worst (for consequences you mention).
At this point, we have two options, both of which require political courage to make.
Pat - I agree that "emboldened that they have been able to hold out against the Americans for this long already." Perhaps, I should say that the House's resolution further emboldens the enemy.
Your examples of WWII and the Civil War make a good point - the U.S. isn't willing to actually wage war in Iraq, or anywhere else at the moment. This is fine unless you undertake fighting a war, which we have in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, we have the Northern Alliance ready and willing to be our allies. There is no such group in Iraq. We tied our own hands so that victory would be elusive at best.
We can rehash the past, and should evaluate the mistakes we made in order not to repeat them. But, at the moment, the more burning question is "where do we go from here?" Pelosi and company are going down a path that is no better, and maybe worse, than the one we're on.
Post a Comment
Your examples of WWII and the Civil War make a good point - the U.S. isn't willing to actually wage war in Iraq, or anywhere else at the moment. This is fine unless you undertake fighting a war, which we have in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, we have the Northern Alliance ready and willing to be our allies. There is no such group in Iraq. We tied our own hands so that victory would be elusive at best.
We can rehash the past, and should evaluate the mistakes we made in order not to repeat them. But, at the moment, the more burning question is "where do we go from here?" Pelosi and company are going down a path that is no better, and maybe worse, than the one we're on.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
