But for the fact that the stakes are so staggeringly high, watching the Senate Pygmies and dwarfs do their preening this past week might actually be humorous. While we fight a real and determined enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, our esteemed Senate is going through the symbolic task of censuring the Commander in Chief with a vote of no confidence. This act -- of no policy substance -- is filled nonetheless with ample symbolism. As General Patraeus told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week, there is no doubt in his mind that any resolution passed in the Congress against the President's new Iraq strategy would both embolden our enemy and demoralize our troops in the field. But that doesn't matter to Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the chicken hawks. But they do support our troops. Or hadn't you heard?
It would be hard to imagine it, but consider the following. It's December 1944 and the German Army has managed to repel the invasion of Normandy -- "D-Day" has failed. American casualties alone are in excess of 20,000 killed and 100,000 wounded. It has been a bloodbath, with images of dead American GI's appearing on newspapers across the country. Eisenhower has gone on radio to deliver the address he had prepared but hoped never to give, taking the blame for the defeat. U.S. forces have returned to England to regroup and refit. The impossible has occurred -- allied momentum has been stopped in its tracks. The American public is in shock.
What to do? Throw in the towel? Leave Britain to their own devices and hope for the best? Tuck tail and run?
It's hard to imagine the America of 1944 running for cover in the face of such a defeat. Can you picture senators on the floor of the Congress censuring FDR, attacking him personally for the failure and calling for an immediate withdrawal from the war? Deciding, in effect, to leave Europe to Hitler, with his policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide in place?
Europe should be glad that a different America supported it then, an America which saw the consequences of defeat for what it really was, with our way of life hanging in the balance. It is clear now that our current Congressional leadership cares more about their own personal ambition than the country's interests. Pandering to the their liberal, weak-kneed base -- the lowest common denominator -- may, sadly, be good politics. But it's bad policy, and proves to the world just how feckless and small our leaders have become.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Time Warp
For many weeks prior to the November, 2006 election I wrote in this blog about the very real danger of a Democratically-controlled Congress putting at risk our long-term security -- by forcing a withdrawal from Iraq, promoting an appeasement with Iran and caving to the Hamas-apologists in Europe. I hate to say "I told you so" but...
The litany of Pelosi-led attacks against American interests is long already, and it's only three weeks into her term as the nation's first female Speaker of the House. Under Pelosi and Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Congress has been noisily debating the Iraq War, claiming that the American people had elected them to the majority to affect "change" in our foreign policy. Fair enough. And what change is that?
Good question. For no sooner had the President issued his decision to increase the size of our forces in Iraq and change commanders, the Congress came out virulently against such a move. Their reasoning? Doubling down on a "bad bet" is bad policy. Their solution to change the situation in Iraq? Fold 'em. Throw in the cards.
Folding, of course, is no real alternative to the commitment we've made to Iraq and the significant stakes at play if we retreat. But this doesn't stop the Democrats from pushing it, whether it be via contentious hearings where they pontificate about the fact that it is now a "civil war" and that we can't possibly win, or their plan to pass a non-binding resolution that shows both our troops and the enemy that we are hopelessly divided and weak. At a time when American kids are in harm's way and our national security is on the line, the Democrats seek soundbites and symbols to punish the President. Sounds a lot like kindergarten to me.
Unfortunately, the Democrats (and a few Republicans) are stuck in a time warp. For these leaders, the students of the Vietnam era, our history lessons begin and end in 1968, when student protests and sit-ins and an opposition-media led to Lyndon Johnson's capitulation and the effective end of the Vietnam War. For the Baby Boomers, Vietnam is the litmus test for all Wars; if isn't clean and neat and quick, it's a quagmire that must necessarily be intractable and un-winnable. And the lesson of Vietnam for these folks is that if you protest enough and play to the public, you can change public opinion to the point where the will to fight is lost. That, in these small minds, is victory.
It makes little difference that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the stakes (and costs) of losing the current fight are exponentially more important to both our security and way of life. There is no serious debate going on here within the Democratic party about what failure in Iraq will mean for us: a fractured nation in the heart of the Middle East, a resurgent Iran filling the vacuum, and a new safe haven for Islamic militants with a deep reserve of oil to finance their attacks against America and Europe. For any serious person, these are stakes worth fighting for. Why does Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their minions not see this?
The answer, sadly, is partisan and political. These are people who want power for power's sake -- not to use it to ends that actually are good for the United States. They oppose Iraq and want to withdraw both because they hate the president and his policies, and they instinctually oppose the use of American force, regardless of the mission. These are not leaders. These people are followers of their political base and an increasingly feckless American public that wants simple answers to complex problems.
And this is why, even now, I support the president. He's been wrong on many things in Iraq, and he's been slow to make changes. But his instincts are right and his courage is manifest: to do what he feels is right for America, not what is popular. That's leadership, folks.
The litany of Pelosi-led attacks against American interests is long already, and it's only three weeks into her term as the nation's first female Speaker of the House. Under Pelosi and Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Congress has been noisily debating the Iraq War, claiming that the American people had elected them to the majority to affect "change" in our foreign policy. Fair enough. And what change is that?
Good question. For no sooner had the President issued his decision to increase the size of our forces in Iraq and change commanders, the Congress came out virulently against such a move. Their reasoning? Doubling down on a "bad bet" is bad policy. Their solution to change the situation in Iraq? Fold 'em. Throw in the cards.
Folding, of course, is no real alternative to the commitment we've made to Iraq and the significant stakes at play if we retreat. But this doesn't stop the Democrats from pushing it, whether it be via contentious hearings where they pontificate about the fact that it is now a "civil war" and that we can't possibly win, or their plan to pass a non-binding resolution that shows both our troops and the enemy that we are hopelessly divided and weak. At a time when American kids are in harm's way and our national security is on the line, the Democrats seek soundbites and symbols to punish the President. Sounds a lot like kindergarten to me.
Unfortunately, the Democrats (and a few Republicans) are stuck in a time warp. For these leaders, the students of the Vietnam era, our history lessons begin and end in 1968, when student protests and sit-ins and an opposition-media led to Lyndon Johnson's capitulation and the effective end of the Vietnam War. For the Baby Boomers, Vietnam is the litmus test for all Wars; if isn't clean and neat and quick, it's a quagmire that must necessarily be intractable and un-winnable. And the lesson of Vietnam for these folks is that if you protest enough and play to the public, you can change public opinion to the point where the will to fight is lost. That, in these small minds, is victory.
It makes little difference that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the stakes (and costs) of losing the current fight are exponentially more important to both our security and way of life. There is no serious debate going on here within the Democratic party about what failure in Iraq will mean for us: a fractured nation in the heart of the Middle East, a resurgent Iran filling the vacuum, and a new safe haven for Islamic militants with a deep reserve of oil to finance their attacks against America and Europe. For any serious person, these are stakes worth fighting for. Why does Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their minions not see this?
The answer, sadly, is partisan and political. These are people who want power for power's sake -- not to use it to ends that actually are good for the United States. They oppose Iraq and want to withdraw both because they hate the president and his policies, and they instinctually oppose the use of American force, regardless of the mission. These are not leaders. These people are followers of their political base and an increasingly feckless American public that wants simple answers to complex problems.
And this is why, even now, I support the president. He's been wrong on many things in Iraq, and he's been slow to make changes. But his instincts are right and his courage is manifest: to do what he feels is right for America, not what is popular. That's leadership, folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
