| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| The American Left: Victory is Retreat! |
| 2006-11-27 |
| The latest straw man that Republicans seem ready to attack with unmerciful force is whether the Democrats have a plan that will successfully get the U.S. out of Iraq. As reasonable as this may sound on the surface, it is about as practical as hitting a solo home run in the ninth inning, down five runs with two outs. Actually, I see it as the left is starting from scrimmage 1st and 10 ball on their own 20 14:55 in the first quarter of a new game. Speaker Nancy Pelosi goes under center, the snap, she holds the ball in horror as she realizes the republican pass rush is coming, screaming "What the hell am I s'posed to do now?" Iraq has been the war where the over-whelming majority of Americans were required only to serve as the game-show audience, cheering on cue when the light came on. There has been no real sacrifice outside of the families of the men and women who serve in the armed forces. I know several folks who have offered to go but who are too old, others who have gone. I have two nephews there now. In fact, we were treated to a series of tax cuts, unprecedented in U.S. war history. But looking back, those tax cuts feel a lot like hush money, buying our silence so we didn't ask critical questions in the run-up to the war. Just how many critical questions do you need? We had a vigorous debate over Iraq and the war was approved by Congress. Even if you believe the war is based on lies you are still morally obligated to see it to its only acceptable conclusion: victory. As Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they are met with a very stark reality: Iraq is not winnable. Even Mr. "Peace with Honor" himself, Henry Kissinger, does not believe we can win. Iraq is unwinnable if we leave. Retreating is a self fulfilling prophesy A country that fails to rely on the lessons of history to inform itself about the present and future, that also places a high premium on winning -- at least the appearance thereof -- will have a difficult time remembering who made the case for war and who has been responsible for the debacle that ensued. It matters little to me who made the case for war. We are all morally obligated to support the mission until we win the war. Such illogic casts a very large, ominous shadow on a party where a large percentage voted for this exercise in megalomania to make it bipartisan -- not to mention the successful public relations campaign that has effectively branded the Democrats as weak on national security matters. This article underscores that branding: Now on Sale: Old Appeasement 86 proof likker Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs calling for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, argued that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict. Leverage against whom? Against ourselves? The only people withdrawal helps are terrorists and their sympathizers. "The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy," said Obama. "It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won." Except for the retreat part which will definately undermine our efforts elsewhere, you can't argue with that. Unfortunately, Obama's statement, though lucid and thoughtful, cannot measure up in terms of perception to the latest Pentagon argot of "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." Sounding more like a last-ditch sandlot football play than a viable policy solution, the latest Defense Department proposal recommends a combination of a short-term increase of 20,000 U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to increase training and advising of Iraqi forces, according to Pentagon officials. What end does this serve? How will this scheme bring about anything other than more violence? Moreover, this proposal comes on the heels of a November that has already laid claim to over 1,300 Iraqi casualties, following 3,709 in October. You can't end violence if you leave Iraq. You can't win a war if you retreat from it. You can't claim strength in National Securirty if the only element you are willing to focus on is the cost As Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said last week, "It is simply unrealistic to believe that somehow a temporary increase in troop levels will turn things around. We are long past any type of military solution." If temporary troop increases were the only thing going on I would agree, but it isn't and I s'pect Hagel knows it. The problem, however, is the collective absence of a plan from anyone -- Democrat or otherwise. In what is a strange twist of irony, any hope of U.S. troops getting out may rest with Syria and Iran. While I doubt that both countries are losing sleep over watching us being bogged down in Iraq, their motivation to help may lie with not wanting our mess to spill over into their countries. So, a solution to war is to negotiate with with the two strongest supporters of terroism in the region and worldwide in exchange for our retreat? What kind of warfighitng foreign policy is that? Oh wait. It's leftist warfighting... nevermind. Because politics is always part of the equation, it is quite possible that should the Democrats come up with a plan to get our troops out Iraq, this country's historical amnesia may cement the belief that they are weak on national security issues, potentially costing them future elections. Actually the obverse will be true. If the left cobbles together and manages to push through a plan to retreat, it will be a whole generation before the left can undo the damage, both to the US and to their own political aspirations. But that sometimes is the unfair price of courage, and I would gladly exchange a few elected officials if it meant finding an end to one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in our history. The American left is an ongoing, constant foreign policy disaster whether they oppose it or not. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #4 HHHHHMMMMM, the future REGIONAL-GLOBAL TAX which no one save Americans = Amerikans are to pay for; or perhaps "The USSA, NOT the USSR", ergo America has to surrender to Fascist-for-Communism Russia, and Communist Commie China??? Theres always RANGEL > FREEREPUBLIC.com > "People don't join the Army iff they have a "decent career", i.e. BIG GOVT-paid/subsidized. ITS FOR OUR OWN GOOD/BENEFIT ERGO WE THE PEOPLE = VOTERS DON'T HAVE TO BE TOLD ABOUT ANYTHING. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-27 21:32 |
| #3 In fact, we were treated to a series of tax cuts, unprecedented in U.S. war history. But looking back, those tax cuts feel a lot like hush money, buying our silence so we didn't ask critical questions in the run-up to the war. If you want to raise revenue this is the way to do it. The fact that previous administrations (and many in the media) didn't know about/understand the Laffer curve doesn't mean anything. Either Brian Williams is dishonest or a fool for including this sentence. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-27 12:48 |
| #2 Iraq has been the war where the over-whelming majority of Americans were required only to serve as the game-show audience, cheering on cue when the light came on. There has been no real sacrifice outside of the families of the men and women who serve in the armed forces. As much of the history of the United States has been outside of 1861-65, 1917-18, 1941-45, 1950-53, 1964-73. More like burps rather than a long experience. Sorta misses the long campaign to build a nation 1790-1880s, the Mexican adventure, the little thing with Spain and the Philippines, numerous adventures around the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf War I, etc. Those were largely the work of the few who made up the standing military and volunteers. But, don't let facts get in the way of your point. Remember the Ratherism, Fake but True. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2006-11-27 11:43 |
| #1 Rev. Byron Williams is a syndicated columnist and pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, CA. Ah. Another "Reverend"... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-11-27 11:36 |