Jim Stillman
M-Kaz
Why can’t the Democrats get it right?
September 11th 2007 18:03
The long awaited report from General David Petraeus has been received and presented to Congress and the American people. There was something to quiet the far right and the far left and, from the Administration’s point of view, an excuse and rationale for keeping our men and women in harm’s way, in Iraq, until January 20th, 2009, when the mess will be on the plate of our next president. The General suggested a withdrawal of about 5,000 service members soon and a total withdrawal of some 30,000 by next summer. Coincidentally, this is the number of “surge” troops that President Bush just added; the result would be a continuing United States military force of about 130,000 men and women. The nature of the withdrawal (hoped but not guaranteed) is similar to a store raising its prices 25% and then proclaiming a massive, unprecedented sale reducing prices by one quarter!
I was fascinated by the statements of General Petraeus regarding our aims and objectives in Iraq. Originally, that objective was the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, and then it was the removal of Saddam Hussein, then the creation of a democracy in Iraq and a stable government able to maintain domestic control. The General said that we were on the way to achieve our goals. He would not explain what those goals were.
Iraq is in a civil war, brought on at least partly by our creating a vacuum in which conflicting forces can flourish. Shia are killing Sunni, Sunni are killing Shia; it will continue until the Iraqi people have had enough. Five years? Ten years? We simply cannot remain until the Iraqi people decide that shooting guns into the air, allowing terrorists such as al Qaeda to run free and violent and burning the American flag will not provide a stable government.
The Democrats are afraid to call for the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Democrats control Congress but will not cut funding for the Iraqi turmoil because Republicans will accuse them of being indifferent to the welfare of our men and women in uniform. But it’s not the Democrats who are indifferent to the troops; it is the Republicans who have outsourced the fighting of the war to the children of the less advantaged citizens of our society.
Our military forces are stretched thin. Virtually our entire regular and reserve forces are in Iraq. We have military obligations in Europe and Korea, in Afghanistan; we must be able to address threats elsewhere in the Middle East and in Africa. At the same time our nation’s governors are complaining about the depletion of National Guard units, necessary for domestic disaster relief.
The stress of prolonged and continuing extensions of deployment in Iraq has resulted in a high rate of military suicides, divorces among servicemen and women and a breakdown in family stability.
Our troops were sent to Iraq with inadequate body armor and inadequate armored vehicles. Our men and women are being killed and maimed by simple roadside bombs, hardly sophisticated weapons.
Yet, if Democrats suggest that we should withdraw from Iraq, they are treated as traitors and indifferent to our uniformed forces. We are told that our war is with terrorists and al Qaeda and General Petraeus stated that al Qaeda – Iraq is a danger and is part of the central movement. That’s true, except it became true only in 2005! Al Qaeda is in Iraq and has its supporters because we are there
The Democratic Congress must pass legislation cutting funding for the war in Iraq and providing funds only to protect our people during the withdrawal. Conservatives, who profess to honor those who founded this country should recall that the fear of those men was an unbridled executive, one that could lead the country into war. Their fears have become our reality.
I was fascinated by the statements of General Petraeus regarding our aims and objectives in Iraq. Originally, that objective was the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, and then it was the removal of Saddam Hussein, then the creation of a democracy in Iraq and a stable government able to maintain domestic control. The General said that we were on the way to achieve our goals. He would not explain what those goals were.
Iraq is in a civil war, brought on at least partly by our creating a vacuum in which conflicting forces can flourish. Shia are killing Sunni, Sunni are killing Shia; it will continue until the Iraqi people have had enough. Five years? Ten years? We simply cannot remain until the Iraqi people decide that shooting guns into the air, allowing terrorists such as al Qaeda to run free and violent and burning the American flag will not provide a stable government.
The Democrats are afraid to call for the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Democrats control Congress but will not cut funding for the Iraqi turmoil because Republicans will accuse them of being indifferent to the welfare of our men and women in uniform. But it’s not the Democrats who are indifferent to the troops; it is the Republicans who have outsourced the fighting of the war to the children of the less advantaged citizens of our society.
Our military forces are stretched thin. Virtually our entire regular and reserve forces are in Iraq. We have military obligations in Europe and Korea, in Afghanistan; we must be able to address threats elsewhere in the Middle East and in Africa. At the same time our nation’s governors are complaining about the depletion of National Guard units, necessary for domestic disaster relief.
The stress of prolonged and continuing extensions of deployment in Iraq has resulted in a high rate of military suicides, divorces among servicemen and women and a breakdown in family stability.
Our troops were sent to Iraq with inadequate body armor and inadequate armored vehicles. Our men and women are being killed and maimed by simple roadside bombs, hardly sophisticated weapons.
Yet, if Democrats suggest that we should withdraw from Iraq, they are treated as traitors and indifferent to our uniformed forces. We are told that our war is with terrorists and al Qaeda and General Petraeus stated that al Qaeda – Iraq is a danger and is part of the central movement. That’s true, except it became true only in 2005! Al Qaeda is in Iraq and has its supporters because we are there
The Democratic Congress must pass legislation cutting funding for the war in Iraq and providing funds only to protect our people during the withdrawal. Conservatives, who profess to honor those who founded this country should recall that the fear of those men was an unbridled executive, one that could lead the country into war. Their fears have become our reality.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
It's not the Democrats fault. They just don't know any better.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
I do have two issues with those who support wholeheartedly our invasion of Iraq. First, I believe that our invasion of Iraq to have been a distraction. Iraq was not behind the two attacks on the World Trade Center. After September 11th, I would have supported, and did support, action in Afghanistan and, if necessary, the border areas of Pakistan to search out and destroy the leaders of al Qaeda. Our actions would have been supported by international law and the world community, at least those countries that have an open mind. Instead, for reasons that have changed over the years, we invaded Iraq, our former friend. During the Iraq-Iran war, we armed Hussein and were willing to ignore his use of poison gas! The result is that we were diverted from going after our real enemy, lost much international good will, left Iraq in a civil war and chaos into which al Qaeda gladly filled the vacuum. Our military is now weakened to the extent that we would have problems in meeting threats from Syria, Iran, Korea, etc., etc. Our troops are suffering emotional stress caused by deployments in excess of the military’s own criteria.
My second issue is one that arises from having a non-parliamentary government. Our founders were deathly afraid of an overly powerful executive; for this reason the power to declare war and the ability to finance a war was kept separate from the President’s role as Commander in Chief. Those powers were given to the Legislature; the Judiciary was the referee.
I resent the position of the President that any who oppose his unilateral actions are fools or traitors. Our respective countries boast about the freedom to dispute government position without being unpatriotic. Unpatriotic is forgetting for which we stand.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Politics makes strange bedfellows and just because today my enemies enemy is my friend, doesn't mean I can't attack that enemy tomorrow when the crisis has passed. Yes, the States did arm Iraq. When? When Iran was holding the hostages for 444 days (or whatever it was?) When the Ayatollah Kohmeni was the biggest threat to the States?
Those threats have now been removed. Like I said before, Hussein didn't like bin Laden but did give him refuge. I can't see bin Laden hiding in a country like Iraq and not leaving a footprint. Perhaps Hussein learned a bit from him during the stay.
Maybe bin Laden isn't the threat to our world as he once was, but rest assured that he has his sleepers in place and they will attack when given the word. All one needs to do is look at the world to see how his message has spread. Out of a billion Muslims, not all of them are terrorists. But just look at the countries he has cowed out of Afghanistan and Iraq by attacking them. Look at how far reaching his murders at the WTC are. Your country and mine are still reeling from that.
I don't know that the Prez said anyone was a traitor, but I'd have to go along with his assertion that they might be fools if they let their guard down. America has never, save Pearl Harbour and that doesn't really count in the context of this debate, been attacked on its own soil. Okay, maybe the War of 1812. The murders at the WTC brought it home big time and for the steps taken to assure it doesn't happen again, I think it's a small price to pay if they give you an extra scan at the airport.
Sorry I can't raise your blood pressure like SL does, but I did give it a shot, LOL.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Iraq had no connection with 9/11, except in the mind of Mr. Chaney. We redirected our forces from ferreting out bin Laden and his al Qaeda leadership structure to removing Hussein, a very evil person, true, but one who posed no immediate threat to the United States.
We have to focus on our real enemies, al Qaeda and terrorist Islam, and secure our borders as best we can, without losing our own values. We must stop wasting resources on Iraq as long as they persist on a civil war that, in ten years or so, will end when the factions decide not to kill each other.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
I'll accept your argument that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US. But in the face of Hussein using, at the least, biological weapons against what he perceived was an enemy to his regime, could it not be possible that it was a trial run?
In order to flex any muscle and make a statement, I'd sure as hell try it out on the little guy (Kuwait) first before I ever thought about going after the big guy on the block.
In ten years time, when you say they will tire of killing each other, will they let the Israeli's stay where they are, or still strive to drive them into the sea? And after that, where do they set their sights?
I'm sorry, but they show us no hope for a future peace. It has been tried in the past and we have seen the results of all those negotiations. The Palestinians have no homeland of their own and don't mind taking over someone else's territory. That is not to say they are all fanatical, just that the rebel faction knows no bounds and will not be bound by any treaties.
To let our guard down now just gives them more time to achieve their evil deeds. The Democratic cry for a timetable of US withdrawal is exactly what they want. They can hide in their caves until the day comes when the US is gone and then crawl out again to begin all over. They don't measure time the way we do here, Jim. They are a very patient people. Maybe if they had day time jobs instead of roaming the streets, waving rifles (probably Uzi's, lol) they'd have a clue as to how today's society works.
Say what you want about Chaney, but consider the last VEEP who wielded such power. I can't think of one either and Bush, I think, did well in choosing him. Bush knows if he is taken out of the picture, the country is in good hands under Chaney, rather than a Gore.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
As for your comparison with Iraq and Germany/Japan, apples and oranges. Iraq is, for the most part, a colonial occupation. As for the bases there, they were to counter Soviet bases yes, even in East Germany, mind you. There isn't near the need for baes in Iraq. You need not worry about my knowledge of history, I am well versed enough to see the straw man side of that argument.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Sorry about your supposed apples to oranges comparison. Wasn't WW II all about war? Did I miss something there? Isn't the hue and cry over Iraq about war? You state that Iraq is mostly a colonial occupation. What colony? What is the rest of it?
I don't question your knowledge of history. It is written by the victors. And people like you swallow it, hook, line and sinker. We've just gone through an incident here where veterans were offended by the portrayal of bombers over Dresden, Germany. The museum gave it an honest airing, yet was made to change the wording, images, etc., etc., because some vets thought it cast them in a bad light. The vets I've talked to have all said the same thing. The bombings stunk and have been glossed over.
I used to believe, like you do, that we could not do any wrong. Then, one day, I woke up and learned to look at both sides of the story and come to my own conclusions. I won't say I'm always right, just that I make an intelligent, informed, honest opinion after having reviewed the facts rather than the myths.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
I stick by my assertion that to equate Iraq to a real "war" especially WWII...is more than comparing apples and oranges, it is downright misleading. If we need to go to a WWII comparison, Iraq equates more to the "logic" used by Axis countries to invade other countries, or by Stalin to remain in Eastern Europe. There is a big difference between wanting to stabilize war torn countries for their own good, and wanting to dominate them for their resources, whatever shiny veneer is put on it.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Jim has blogged numerous times about his objection to the term 'war' as used in the context it being used in the vein of being on terorism. Fair enough. But today's society brings us all new, never before imagined, meanings to words. How the heck can you put 'rap' and 'music' in the same sentence, for instance. It is neither, but it is accepted.
I will bow to you in your reference to apples/oranges in the regard that the Axis countries were not trying to liberate anyone. They did indeed want everyone under their control. However, that's not what the US is doing in Iraq.
They are there to fight an enemy that threatens us daily. Read Spain, England, Canada, the Phillipines, France, the USA, etc.
Not a popular war by any means, but one that must be taken seriously and dealt with harshly. There are those who would rather have Iran or Iraq stand behind them than the US. I wish them luck. bin Laden may be yesterday's news, but he is still dangerous and we'd all better be aware of the swath he's cut across the globe. Even taking a camera into the woods doesn't mean you didn't leave a footprint.