Kowabunga

Star Tribune On Victory In Iraq

Interesting editorial from the Red Star Tribune on how Democrats are now being blamed for the “mess” in Iraq.

A new, pernicious line of argument is taking hold in Washington that should be clunked in the head until it dies. It holds that the Democrats in Congress are to blame for the mess in Iraq because they have offered no alternative around which Americans can rally, and that this is because they and their friends in the antiwar community want the United States to fail.

I believe it is correct to say that Democrats and their Liberal, anti-war, puppeteers are to blame, at least in part, the reasoning to do so is not due to reasons outlined in the editorial, but due to their continuous calls for withdrawing from Iraq, references to Iraq as being “another Vietnam,” and various types of rhetoric, such as “No war for oil” and “Bush lied, people died.” Instead of supporting the mission of our troops in Iraq, they continue to thwart the administration’s plans that may bring victory, choosing to use Iraq as a political hockey puck in order to achieve their own politcal gain (which, as shown in the 2006 elections, had some impact on the composition of the new Congress).

It also doesn’t help that our involvement in Iraq, as during our operations in Vietnam, garnered anti-war protests, and liberal celebrities using their stardom to convey an anti-war message. This emboldens the terrorists and sectarian death squads operating in Iraq. It also sends a signal to Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran, giving them a “green light” to continue to supply arms, money, and manpower to the anti-government forces operating in Iraq.

This is not Vietnam, nor should this war be compared to that war. Except for the home ground, where the media, the leftist anti-war zealots, and Liberal Democrats push for abandoning the fledgling democracy in Iraq before it has a chance to set down roots and anchor itself deep enough to overcome the challenges that terrorists and sectarian death squads pose.

Here is another fine example of the real reason we are having such troubles achieving victory in Iraq:

Underlying this reasoning is a bleak recognition that Bush’s latest gambit, built around the so-called surge, won’t work, coupled with some magical thinking: that indeed a formula exists which could reverse American fortunes and bring the Iraq expedition to a successful conclusion. But, the argument goes, Democrats have failed to embrace it, so this mess is their fault.

Lots of small, inconvenient facts are jettisoned to make this argument — such as the growing number of Republicans who are joining their Democratic colleagues in opposition to the war. But the central, painful truth that gets ignored is this: Nothing can reverse American fortunes in Iraq. The United States already has failed. Bush failed. It’s over. All that remains is working through the best way to get American troops out of Iraq.

There is a plan which can accomplish that, put forward by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). It entails shifting from a military to a political and diplomatic emphasis, strengthening efforts to train Iraqi troops and beginning the withdrawal of American combat forces. We wish the Democrats would use the power of the purse to force Bush’s acceptance of the ISG approach. The political risk is that they would then be accused of undermining the troops. But that’s a risk worth taking, and the Democrats have a good retort: They weren’t the ones who put the troops in Iraq in the first place, in inadequate numbers with inadequate resources (remember the missing armor?). It now falls to the Democrats to keep the troops safe by the only effective way possible: getting them out of Iraq.

The understanding I have (and I could be mistaken) is that the “surge” was part of the plan put forth by the ISG. With five brigades being added to the area surrounding Baghdad, the hottest spot in Iraq, effectively doubling the number of “boots on the ground,” it may be possible to finally securing that part of the country. That is the key to achieving victory in Iraq. Secure the capital and its immediate surroundings, and you have the basis to secure the rest of the country, and send a message to Iraq’s enemies, most notably Iran, that their continued interference with Iraq will not be tolerated.

It is also false to say that the Democrats were not “the ones to put troops in Iraq in the first place.” They all (with maybe one or two exceptions) voted in favor of liberating Iraq. Liberating Iraq was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do today.

One thing the editorial does get right is that the bulk of Democrats never embraced the plan. The only reason for that is because it was put forth by President Bush, and not one of their own. I have no doubt that if it we had elected Gore in 2000 (and no, the election was not stolen from him), they (the Democrats in congress) would have rallied behind any plan he set forth. Of course, that would most likely be some superficial aerial bombing of Afghanistan with little or no effect on al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein would be alive and well, and continuing to butcher Iraq’s that oppose him.

As for the “missing armor,” that was the fault of Democrats voting against funding the necessary equipment for the troops in the field. Remember John Kerry’s “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against.” A sizable part of that was for body armor and other equipment for the troops serving in Iraq. It is Congress that controls the purse strings of government, and if the troops were in Iraq with insufficient equipment, it is because Congress failed to provide the funding necessary to assure that the troops were properly equipped.

Somehow, I am not surprised by the extreme bias presented by the Red Star Tribune. The Main Stream Media has been, for some time now, nothing more than the propaganda arm for the left-wing of the Democratic party. In their opinion, Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do nothing right. Yeesh!

Tags:

Iraq Study Group Iraq Vietnam War On Terror Kerry