Democrats' Political Theater is Bad for America’s Security
By Marcus Traianus Posted in National Security | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For anyone who cares to ponder the implications of our situation in Iraq, it provides a revealing, almost prescient view of the future. Accordingly, it is indisputable the choices we made to oppose a clear and present danger presented by Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship were supported by a plurality of our representatives and indeed the world. Evidentiary to this assertion are the textual claims presented in our Iraq AUMF and numerous UN Resolutions that go well beyond the current fallacious Democrat theme that eliminating usable weapons of mass destruction was our only goal. But then, Democrats voted on our AUMF, approved of the text and their leadership had access to all information used to make our countries threat assessment; so they already know this. It is important to remember these facts, especially in context of our current environment and assessing this countries ability to overcome future threats.
Read on . . .
Certainly, the most important issue of 2008 will continue to be our countries security against those who want kill us simply because of bedrock principles based on free and democratic existence. The threats aligned against us have brought insecurity to this nation by an escalating series of events not prompted by our action against them. Appropriately, it is then not hard to envision it was our inaction that brought these specious, ideological forces to attack ordinary American citizens with disastrous results. It was a response mistaken for weakness and only addressed with overwhelming resolve. It is therefore not hard to draw an inference these forces must be defeated, less we prepare for another more devastating result.
In this context preparation becomes the essence of a holistic policy which encompasses a dynamic set of actions including diplomacy, and when warranted military force. The latter is essential to this countries future since it causes an adversary to carefully consider their actions which may potentially bring and end to their existence. Strategy is a dangerous game in these circumstances and eliminating a potential consequence or injecting consideration which may bring about hesitation is advantageous. It is in these latter qualities which Democrat’s have excelled to the detriment of our nation. They have once again handed devices that cause us to be vulnerable over to our enemies.
They treat our security as casual political theater; an endeavor in which their policies are unknown or parsed to create a type of climactic, surprising ending. This is all accompanied by boisterous and thematic pandering which blames thoughtful offensive action for reaction and failure to prematurely succeed. It is akin to a metaphorical “Monday Morning Quarterback” who on Saturday declared a winning strategy in a playoff series, only to speciously opine about the reasons for a win and demur on future chances for success. That is a detestable game to play with our security and an insulting abrogation of intelligent policy. It is also indicative of a group who has no tangible sense at how we have arrived at a dangerous precipice and intends to move us closer to the edge.
Certainly, most casual observers of Middle Eastern issues realize the genuine role a successful democracy in Iraq will play in that region. It will be a hopeful oasis in an expanse built on fear and non participative government feeding the ideology of hate prominently threatening us today. This unsettling, constant stream of conflict benefits certain regional governments and helps expand the influence of ignominious ideological inculcators such as Iran and Syria. To not realize this fact, as most obviously illustrated by situations in Palestine and Lebanon, would show ignorance on a monumental scale.
Yet as we attempt to succeed in Iraq by bringing about real and sustainable alternatives, Democrat’s stand up and protect those forces aligned against this country with their oratory devoid of textual policy and modus operandi presupposing that any action political adversaries undertake is incorrect. Are we not citizens of the same country with a future inextricably linked? Conclusively, it is destructive for a citizen of this country to support and ignore the implications of this defeatist, uninformed perspective which is devoid of factually grounded strategy. Hence the justifiable, concordant characterization that Democrat representation will be bad for our countries security.
The most recent display of this inexplicable indifference involves public identification of Iran as a primary participant of attacks against our troops. Rather than be supportive of language which discourages their participation, Democrats instead choose to warn the President about expanding the conflict. If Democrats could actually follow the progression, they would see Iran has already expanded this conflict to include their active participation. Consequently, does this speech in any way help protect our troops, further the goals of our country or put us in a better position to secure this countries future? Absolutely not and it ensures that future regional policy will be met with skepticism, loss of influence and ultimately hamper our ability to keep this country secure.
The truth is Democrats have no alternative to our current plan for achieving victory in Iraq except to attack those who continue to show leadership in carrying out a strategy this country agreed was prudent. Their only hope is based on a political calculation that we will lose; public opinion will stay low and their contra- intellectual filibuster can continue until 2008. It is in that strategy we can only hope they fail, to the betterment and improved security of our nation.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
The truth is Democrats have no alternative to our current plan for achieving victory in Iraq except to attack those who continue to show leadership in carrying out a strategy this country agreed was prudent.
They don't have one.
However, I'm not sure that Bush has one either.
From Slate
Thanks to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, I now have an answer: Our strategic stagnation results from the fact that we are fighting four wars, not one. According to Gates: "One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaida, and al Qaida is attacking, at times, all of those targets."
I'm very happy that Gates seems to understand the situation far better than Rumsfeld ever did, but I'm not sure he (or for that matter, anyone) can find a way to fix Iraq enough so we can declare victory and leave.
Respectfully, the support for your conclusion is based on a premise limited to one small section of lengthy remarks by Gates. Frankly, this is exactly the type of misleading opine that confuses the American public.
Gates explains the complexities of this conflict as an illustration of difficulties that require confrontation for victory; not as a means of saying we have no plan or it is impossible to win. Read through the policies and actions; there is a well articulated plan much to the Democrats dismay.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/c3212.htm
The link you provided, while lengthy and politically vacillating seems to suggest that Iraq was better off under the iron hand of Saddam by using Tito as an example. Yes, of course let’s keep fractious regions together by genocide, tyranny and campaigns of terror. That way, we can avoid being embroiled in these types of situations in the future; where governments provide a safe haven for terrorist activity that ends up on our shores; good point by the writer (sarcasm, of course).
The bottom line is there are no easy answers in Iraq or addressing ideological issues that led to the September 11th or subsequent attacks against this nation. That was not undersold from this conflicts commencement.
What has been oversold is Democrat’s resolve to defeat this enemy and keep our nation safe. They have put themselves on the side of our countries opposition and it will be enjoyable to watch them squirm, parse and retreat as we move further towards victory in Iraq.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
would be for a legitimate, thoughtful debate in the senate to result in some sort of expression of formal concern to the president, while in the end voicing support for the cause. That would tell me that the Senate (aka "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body") had actually thought the problem through and decided that their theatre was not only pointless, but probably damaging.
I have no problem with a national debate on the war, but I think that since all we're talking about is toothless words here, we'd be better to keep them to ourselves.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
The only memorable line from Bush's most recent SOTU was to the Democrats:
"Whatever you voted for, you didn't vote for defeat."
It is memorable on two levels. First, it is noble but wrong. Many voted to authorize force because they thought it politically expedient. The second reason it is memorable is because it should be true.
The Dems have seen the GWOT largely through the lens of political opportunism. Many don't see the threat as real or at least imminent. While most object to the Iraq War on more principled grounds, I submit their voiced positions would be much different if the opinion polls were much different regardless of the facts on the ground.
Harsh? Maybe. But I strongly feel it to be the case.