War should never be the answer, but sometimes it has to be. And when you’re in one, you’d better fight to win. Thousands and thousands of our troops have done that.
The same can’t be said for everyone here at home. The liberal take over of Congress has highlighted and amplified the defeatist philosophy which exists among us.
The so called “conservative and moderate Democrats” who were said to now comprise the majority of their party, are predictably silenced by the leading leftist wing of the party. Among all Democrats, right now only Joe Lieberman seems courageous enough to stand in the gap for his nation’s success now that a new strategy for victory in Iraq is imminent.
When writing this column the President had scheduled, but not yet delivered this new strategy. But plenty has been leaked out about it to get a feel for his direction. And enough has already been said about it by the opposition to understand theirs.
One seeks victory, the other seeks defeat.
If the leaks are accurate and the President is leaning toward an increase in troop levels as well as more defined conditions for the Iraqi’s, his philosophy will be described as one that seeks victory.
An increase in troops would be well overdue. Securing Baghdad, securing borders, and increasing the tempo of training for Iraq’s forces should all be areas on which to focus. A surge to accomplish those things while the Iraqi government gets themselves to a point where they can begin to look after their own affairs would secure victory and should have us starting out of the country on a timeline I believe we’d be on and one the Iraqi’s have expressed a desire to accomplish.
When I returned from Iraq in the fall of 2004, my publicly proclaimed assessment given history’s examples for rebuilding countries, the difficulties of fighting an insurgency, overcoming cultural barriers, starting a paradigm shift toward self-determination, and the condition Saddam had left that country in, was that we were going to be needed there for another 3 years. The Iraqi’s have repeatedly expressed a desire to take over their security by this summer.
A strategy which includes a temporary surge should help them do that while providing us a victorious position from which to begin heading home.
But the defeatists, with Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi leading the charge, are already talking about ways to fight that strategy, micromanage it, control it, or flat out prevent it from happening. Why would they fight a strategy for victory? Why not try to win? The only answers can be that either they have accepted defeat or specifically seek defeat.
On last Sunday’s talk shows Joe Biden touted a political solution. Notice that he neither provides the details of what one would be, nor does he speak about finding a way to win.
Obviously he’s given up the fight.
In the continuum of warfare, diplomacy and politics are ongoing. But when you’ve given up the fight, the continuum leads you to surrender, either conditional or unconditional.
So, let’s call his solution, and that of many of his cohorts including Ms. Pelosi, what it really is: pursuit of conditional surrender by the U.S.
Interesting concept; even after victory in the elections they still seek defeat for our nation.
I thought going into the elections Nancy and Joe were just partisans, willing to say anything, take any position simply to be 180 degrees opposite the President in the hopes of gaining a political edge. Maybe they’re eyeing the ’08 elections and pursuing the same game plan. But I think now it has more to do with not having the will to fight the hard and dirty parts of the war on terror.
If they would offer anything other than criticism, resignation, and nebulous concepts I might think differently about them on both the defeatism and political ambitions fronts. But aside from Nancy Pelosi wanting more troops back in ’04, something she now opposes, they’ve been slim on positive suggestions and hints of supporting victory.
Her support for troops then but not now is reminiscent of how she was as minority leader in Congress with her “oppose the Republicans at all costs” strategy. This is the same strategy. Simply oppose the President at all costs, even to the national security of this nation.
But they continue their strategy of never offering any answers, just criticism. There is the “surrender, cut, and run” strategy they keep proposing, but we don’t hear anything about victory from them. I incorrectly assumed after the elections they would have to face the realities of our national security position, the reality of the war on terror, and come to the table with some sort of ideas and willing cooperation for a U.S. victory.
I was wrong. I underestimated their partisanship and defeatism.
If they could offer a solution for victory, if they could define what a political solution is and how it would be achieved, if they could address the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal (surrender) from Iraq, if they’d quit giving the enemy exactly what he needs to motivate his continued fighting they’d have some credibility in the arena of national security. But they refuse to, or are incapable of doing so.