Redstate

Altho I am a Michigan resident, I am not in Rep. McCotter's district. Rather, I am in Monroe, along the River Raisin, where in 1812-13, war raged between our young nation and the British. We are about 35 miles south of Detroit; about 12 miles north of Toledo, along Lake Erie.

A force of Americans led by Gen. William Hull left Monroe hoping to defend Detroit. Their supply lines cut off by Indians, the Americans under Hull's direction surrendered almost without firing a shot on August 16, 1812.

A new force of Americans, principally from Kentucky, was assembled in Maumee, Ohio near Toledo. On January 10, 1813, over 600 of them, joined by about 100 others from the Monroe area met and overcame the 63 Canadian militiamen and 200 Potawatami Indians who had been left by the British to defend the river area.

The sad chapter in American military history is recounted on the Monroe County historical website http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/monroe/default.aspx?PageId=274

"The British counterattacked. On the morning of January 22, 1813, 597 British and Canadian soldiers, six cannons, and 800 Indians launched an attack. As they moved forward in the pre-dawn darkness, they were discovered by an American sentry. Although surprised, the Americans took positions quickly and returned fire.

"The fighting had been raging for twenty minutes when the U.S. 17th infantry, camped on the right in an open field, was flanked by Canadian militia and Indians. Orders were given to retreat to the river and make a stand, and 240 more Americans were sent from the center lines to help.

"The retreat became a disastrous flight for Ohio. Of the 400 Americans who ran, nearly 220 Americans were killed, about 147 including General Winchester, were captured. Only 33 escaped to safety.

"At the same time, the left wing of nearly 500 Kentucky militiamen were fighting from behind a puncheon fence. They successfully repulsed three British frontal attacks and drove back the British cannons with their rifles.

"These Americans, with only five killed and 40 wounded, expected the British to ask for a truce. They saw a British officer with a white flag, but were shocked to find he carried a message from General Winchester advising them to surrender. The Kentuckians reluctantly surrendered, after insisting on terms that the American wounded be protected from the Indians.

"The British withdrew hurriedly, due to heavy casualties and news that more Americans under command of General Harrison were nearby. The American wounded were left behind in the homes of the settlers.

"On the morning of January 23, 1813, all of the British guards, who were supposed to be protecting the wounded, left. Indians returned to the River Raisin. They plundered homes and the wounded for valuables, and then killed and scalped Americans who could not walk.

"Bodies were tossed into burning houses that the Indians had set aflame. Those able to walk were claimed by the Indians and taken to Detroit where they were ransomed. Over 60 unarmed American wounded were killed. This was later known as the "Massacre of the River Raisin". "

Surrender in Michigan in 1813 meant that the weakest amongst us would be scalped and the strongest who capitulated would be held for bondage.

What is interesting about this conflict is that the Northeast states so completely disliked fighting it, that they arranged to convene in Hartford to consider withdrawing from the Union.

And General Andrew Jackson's successful "surge" at the Battle of New Orleans gave us hope that one day this might be a larger, mighter, better country than the one whose wounded had been scalped and murdered in Michigan.

"In 2002, with the world – and especially our enemy – watching, America gave its solemn vow to the oppressed Iraqi people we would emancipate them from a tyrant to experience their God-given right to liberty."

We did not take down Saddam Hussein to give liberty to the Iraqi people. If forcibly giving people liberty had been our goal, we could have started a lot closer to home, like Cuba. We invaded Iraq because it was a potential terror threat and continual pain. Letting it alone wasn't doing wonders for our scheme of deterrence.

Nor are we really much interested in giving Iraqis liberty now. If a city chooses to be part of AQ's Caliphate, I've no problems with blowing it off the map. If we really don't care what Iraqis do politically, there's little reason for us to still be there.

It's important to the war against terror that we prevent AQI from getting a Caliphate in Iraq. Further, it's important that we be seen as victorious in Iraq. These are two perfectly good reasons to continue being there in substantial force. We don't need to make up stories about a "solemn vow". If we promised anything, it was to remove Hussein and set up a democracy. Been there, done that.

The people who are really interested in forcibly exporting democracy are already on-board the Iraq occupation anyway. It's the rest of us who could use a little reassurance from time to time.

I venture every now and then to RedState because I am gratified to hear things other than the liberal news echo-chamber, however mellifluous I find that sound. And I can count on finding most of the posts here entirely disagreeable to my way of thinking, which is not such a bad thing. But mainly, I know that, depending on the post topic, I can read some fascinating debates and discussions, from obviously well educated and knowledgable people. In fact, I much enjoy the user content here more than most sites on the Left.

But lately, I've found that most of the members of RedState have just gone off the deep end and, while I understand that we will always have significant differences, I'm not even sure that we could agree on the color of the sky at this point, which is very disheartening. Even worse is the post-2006 circling-the-wagons effect, which cheapens discourse and makes every RedState post, no matter who presents it, a cri du couer as well as a vicious attack on the most perfidious enemy imaginable. Not bin Laden and his ilk. No: the Left.

Case in point with Rep. McCotter's series of questions here. No, I'm not complaining about the comments, but with the simplistic thinking that is obviopusly encouraged at RedState. Who really, honestly can defend this treatise of his, in the days when we all know the Iraq War is on the wane?

In 2002, with the world – and especially our enemy – watching, America gave its solemn vow to the oppressed Iraqi people we would emancipate them from a tyrant to experience their God-given right to liberty.

Did we? I didn't! Nor did most of America. It's not my responsibility to give the Iraqis freedom, not does the Constitution support it. Nor do we even have the power now, after the Iraq disaster, to liberate another "oppressed" country. Which is sad. As the poster above has stated, the Iraq war was never about freeing anybody.

1. If America breaks its vow and abandons the Iraqis to be slaughtered, who in the region or the world will trust our word?

We have already abandoned Iraqis to be slaughtered, or hasn't Rep. McCotter read the papers? And who can possibly trust our word now anyway, with thirteen justifications for our idiotic invasion?

2. If America belies its professed commitment to liberty, what can we possibly offer the Middle East’s – indeed, the world’s – oppressed to turn them away from the enemy and toward us?

Our commitment to liberty is for ourselves, not to give liberty at rifle-point to others, and it's embarrassing that I have to point this out to a U.S. Congressman. What we can offer the oppressed is what we have always offered them, sans guns and bombs and "shock and awe" and jingoism and false pretexts for invasion. Our record in Iraq would turn anybody's stomach, I agree.

3. After Iraq is abandoned, how soon will the Left demand America’s immediate retreat in the other “war without end” – Afghanistan?

Well, that all depends. I think we should stay, but in force, not in the half-assed way we are doing now. Why are we so distracted from Afghanistan and Waziristan? That's right: Iraq.

But do it right or don't do it at all. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have been enormously flawed.

4. What are the consequences to America if we are defeated in Iraq and Bin-Laden is proven right: “America is definitely a great power, with an unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation”?

The consequences to America are already arriving, which is why the Left is so upset. The war in Iraq is over, it's now just how we get out and how big a mess we leave behind. You all know this. The lives, money, honor and goodwill wasted in this sorry adventure are beyond belief. We shall be decades recovering from Iraq, and as almost everybody has said, we have only made global terrorism worse. Even Petraeus couldn't deny that.

We only defeated ourselves. We are the only power that could bring ourselves so low.

Should the Left prevail and these answers become bitter realities,

It's not the Left, it's most of America, including many Republicans. The "bitter reality" is already obvious for those with eyes to see it.

present and future generations of Americans will be faced with the dark specter of nuclear armed terrorist states in a war without end against an implacable enemy bent upon our destruction;

Are we not there already, with North Korea and Iran?

and, our just God so disposed, the Left will be held to account for betraying the integrity of America’s word in this crucible of our nation’s War for Freedom.

Now it's War for Freedom? Didn't we win that war already, some two hundred years ago? It's amazing how this administration and the GOP Congress made every mistake and blunder conceivable, but now it's the Left, who unwillingly acting by any sane standard, "will be held to account." You make the mess, and we'll be held to account. Responsibility in action!

And, make no mistake, we will not escape the history’s inquiry of us

No, hopefully you won't. You're the problem. It is YOU who should be held to account. We're just cleaning up this colossal mistake.

The argument is moot at this point whether you believe we invaded Iraq as liberators or terror destroyers.

The reality is we are there and we have two options. Stay there until the job is done or pull out before the job is done.

The left are always the ones worried about our international reputation and having world friends allies and approval. Pulling out prematurely will gain us friends in the global community? NOT.

The question is now are we better off pulling out or staying and following through on our mission. As Powell says, If you break it you must fix it. I guarantee if Bush totally caved and pulled out according to ReidaLosi's wishes he'd receive plenty of blame from the left for leaving the Iraqi's high and dry.

The real lesson to be learned is the left doesn't really care what happens as long as they get the white house. Then everything will become magically delicious!

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

www.win-the-war.com.

Rep. McCotter,

What do you suppose "history's inquiry" will have to say about your role in abetting the disastrous mismanagement of the Iraq campaign?

How do you account for the fact Bin Laden is still alive?

Our country needs leadership. If ours is the party of responsibility, why are you hurling McCarthy grenades at the left?

Condor

1. If America breaks its vow and abandons the Iraqis to be slaughtered, who in the region or the world will trust our word?

This is the major problem - who is going to do the slaughtering? This point is never made clear. There is no North Vietnam in this scenario. The majority population of the country (the Shia) are ostensibly on our side and supporting the Maliki government. Who is going to kill whom? What is the root of this mass murder going to be? Shia murdering Sunni? Kurds killing Arabs? What is it that is going to happen? Iran invading along with Syria? What are the outcomes that are so dire here? That is that part that is being left out, and without that support will continue to flag.

2. If America belies its professed commitment to liberty, what can we possibly offer the Middle East’s – indeed, the world’s – oppressed to turn them away from the enemy and toward us?

Iraq has a government. Who is threatening to take liberty away frmo the Iraqis? Who is trying to overthrow the government? What is the threat that Americans are protecting Maliki from? Al Sadr? The Iranians? The Sunnis? Not the small and abysmally supported Al Qaeda creeps, that's for sure. Who?

3. After Iraq is abandoned, how soon will the Left demand America’s immediate retreat in the other “war without end” – Afghanistan?

Well, since you mentioned it, what is the overall situation there? There is a government in Kabul that was elected. That government can exercise some control over some areas. Most of the country appears to be in the hands of local "leaders." Will 10 more years of American occupation change that? Will 20? What is that we are trying to do? Is it leave behind an Afghanistan which is under the central control of Kabul? Loose federation?

4. What are the consequences to America if we are defeated in Iraq and Bin-Laden is proven right: “America is definitely a great power, with an unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation”?

Well - who is defeating us? Saddam is pushing up daisies, and the government in Baghdad is there because we put it there. Where's the defeat?

Who are we fighting in Iraq? What is the face of the enemy? Are we only committed to staying until AQ is obliterated? Are we staying as long as there is threat of sectarian violence? Who is it that is 'defeating us?'

Talking points need to go away. Now. Time to actually level with the American people.