Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Surge Working, Democrats Want To Pull The Plug

March 14, 2007

Reportedly, President Bush’s Troop Surge (read reinforcement) to Iraq is already producing remarkable results. Cited from the article, “Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic. There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq.”

After a unanimous vote appointing General Petraeus Commander in Iraq, results are being shown, at long last.

Since the beginning of this War, Democrats and other leftists have been whining and crying about “lack of results,” “quagmire,” “being bogged down” and other such nonsense. Granted, as in every war, mistakes have been made. Change of Command has been implemented and steps are taken to achieve the results, Victory in Iraq against the terrorists in this War on Terror.

One would think that the Democrat party, being the patriots they claim, would be jubilant and supportive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead of celebrating or asking what additional support our Troops could use, the Democrat party is holding debates in Congress on how to “withdraw from Iraq” before the expected results are ever reached.

Ted Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts and infamous for the Chappaquiddick tragedy, said, “The American people are far ahead of the administration. We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to our president when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq.” Senator Kennedy, what course other than Victory is acceptable to you? Defeat?

Your efforts helped bring about the fall and conquering of South Viet Nam by Communism before. Is that your desire now? While you were “debating” Viet Nam, partying, driving off of bridges and leaving a young woman alone and defenseless in an overturned car, many of us were in Viet Nam wondering if we would be abandoned by the left. We were fighting for America and South Viet Nam, Senator. We were stopping the ebbing flow of Communism, until you and your Congressional cronies pulled the plug, stopped our support and withdrew us. Later, you stopped all support to Viet Nam and allowed them to be easily overrun by the Communist North.

Is that the plan again? Waste more American lives? Abandon the fledgling Democracy in Iraq and allow radical Islamofascists to conquer them? Let them set up more terrorists training camps much closer to America and Europe than they were in Afghanistan?

What then, Senator?

All along, the Democrats have been crying about “open ended commitment” in the War. They want a definite date to end it, an exit strategy or whatever else they can muster to hasten our defeat. Odd though, they never demanded any of that in former President Clinton’s bombing campaign and occupation of Bosnia/Kosovo.

While President Bush has repeatedly stated our commitment there isn’t “open-ended,” is it prudent to announce that date to the enemy? Would that not just broadcast to them to wait and let us leave so they can rush in and takeover, as did the Communist North Vietnamese?

Newly crowned Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who ran a campaign in part on “doubling the Special Forces,” and “Rebuild[ing] a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary,” is finding out it’s much easier to bellyache in a campaign than to actually be a leader.

In the Houses “debate” on ‘snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory,’ her and California’s mouthy Maxine Waters (no relation, thankfully) are said to have gotten into somewhat of a cat fight in closed hearings. At stake is the $100 Billion Bush requests to fund the Troops efforts that are beginning to give the asked for results that frighten the left. The House wants to attach wording to the bill requiring a troop withdrawal by 2008, before the next Presidential election. Of course, making Iraq a failure would fit into the plan of crying how inept Bush and Republicans are with the expected result of ushering in Democrats for decades more power.

Congress has the legal right to fund or de-fund this or any war, by our constitution. Of course, stopping funding outright would stop the war, which they want, but it also would show it is they who caused the horrific outcome that surely will follow.

History shows that Congress indeed plays a significant role in fighting or surrendering in war. Many longingly look back to Viet Nam and along with the willing accomplices in the media, are eager to relive those days when they felt they accomplished something. All they accomplished was defeat, surrender and the murder of millions of South Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. They totally demoralized the Military and it took years to recover.

By not supporting our ally in South Viet Nam, we became the laughing stock of the planet, a “paper tiger” which any third-rate country could back down. Today and after some 15 terrorist attacks against our interests (since 1979), 2 within the borders of our country, the Democrat party and their willing accomplices in the media are repeating the same mistakes that resulted in the fiasco of April 1975.

Never forget, Democrats were calling for actions against Iraq long before Bush was elected. They had been viewing intelligence years before Bush got to see it and when the call came to finally enforce the cease-fire signed after the First Gulf War, most voted for that action. Almost immediately, they started politicizing it, bitterly dividing the country once more and blaming it all on Bush.

In the meantime, our Troops are fighting a war wondering if they are supported by the American Public, wondering if Congress will abandon them as they did us in Viet Nam and wondering why their hands are being tied instead of letting them win this War.

Supporting the Troops, but not the War is just a leftist feel good stance designed to relieve the left of their guilt over the way we Viet Nam Veterans were done for so long. In reality, the only Troops they support are the small handful that speaks out against the War and President Bush. The rest, the vast majority, mean nothing to them.

In all of this “debating,” the only thing you will not hear from the Democrat party is any idea of achieving Victory. According to them, Victory in Iraq cannot be achieved because we can’t define it. Sorry, lefties, but I have a clear definition as does our Troops and President Bush. If you don’t, that’s your problem, not mine.

Victory can and will be achieved as long as we can stop the Democrat party’s “defeat from within” policy.



Wingate said...

What the president and proponents of the "surge" in Iraq have underestimated is the loathing Iraqis have of foreign troops bursting into their houses, shoot-to-kill checkpoints, and the humiliation occupation brings. Foreign troops legitimize insurgency.

Conquering foreign soldiers will be resisted in Iraq, as they have always been everywhere down the centuries. In early April 1775, the British governor of Boston sent John Howe out to gather intelligence in that hotbed of insurgency now called the western suburbs, but then the Anbar province of its time. Howe met an old man cleaning his rifle who looked too old to hunt game.

The old man said he expected foreign soldiers -- "a flock of redcoats" -- would be arriving soon, and he thought they would make good targets. Arrive they did, and with them the American revolution that in many states degenerated into civil war. The British soldiers were mostly of the same race and religion as the people they fought, but they were by then foreigners, and eight years later they were gone.

LewWaters said...

Much of what you say is true, wingate. However, I do disagree with you.

While insurgents did flood into Iraq, it wasn't to save Iraq, it was to further enslave the people under radical Islam and possibly grab their oil fields to finance their 'jihad.'

I feel this is so due to the numbers of Iraqi citizens desiring to join their Military and fight alongside of and even in front of our Troops in opposing those insurgents.

What most fail to distinguish is that we didn't enter Iraq to 'conquer' the Iraqi people, but to give them a fighting chance at determining their own destiny.

The one thing I do believe Bush did underestimate was the opposition he would experience from shameless politicians who wish to exploit the War, the Troops and anything else in their power grab.

On the other hand, I'm sure the 'insurgents' love seeing it as they know all they have to do is wait us out. Hey, it worked for the North Vietnamese, why won't it work again?

LewWaters said...

Wingate and others, for an example my view on Iraq, please read the letter General Petraeus sent to the Troops.

General Petraeus Letter