Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi today sent the following letter to President Bush urging him to reject his reported plan to escalate the war in Iraq by increasing troop levels and delaying the ability of the Iraqi government to take control of their own future.
Quotes from the letter:
"We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution."
"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."
If the answer is no, we need to get our troops out. Immediately if not sooner, as the saying goes. If victory is no longer an option--it's not--we need to stop the bleeding. Anything else is moral cowardice of the highest degree. Like the President in Clear and Present Danger, the Democrats are willing to let the troops die like flies. This way Bush looks like an idiot and they save face. If a few farm boys from Texas have to die, sobeit. At least Pelosi has control.
If the answer is yes, then they need to offer a plan instead of hoisting endless platitudes. I don't think Pelosi knows a thing about the military, but she must have someone on her staff who has a little free time and can read up on the war. Alternatively, she could talk to some of the military brass, many of whom are increasingly disinterested in watching their men die for naught.
Back in high school I used to wrestle. My dad, himself a wrestler, used to have saying that he borrowed from one of his old coaches. Quote approximate: You need to have a plan A and a plan B, and plan B can't be trying plan A harder. If my fireman's carry wasn't proving effective against an opponent, I needed to try another move. If our troops aren't winning in Iraq, we can't shuffle paperwork somewhere in Washington, implicitly suggesting that if only our troops tried harder they'd emerge victorious.
Buchanan had another interesting column today, wherein he highlights neo-conservative backstabbing of Bush, the likes of which would be liable to land one in Dante's lowest circle of Hell. The reason the war in Iraq is failing, and will continue to fail has nothing to do with Bush, except insofar as he sent the troops there. Put more plainly, Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt or Eisenhower would have flubbed up Iraq, too. Except that I don't think Ike would have let himself be sold on the war in the first place.
2 comments:
The Iraqis are fighting each other, and figting us when we get in the way. We help one side only to have them shoot at us the next day. Enough of this sitting on the fence. If we are going to increase troops, we need to do it! There are enough troops to secure a small area, but then we move out and the "enemy" moves back in.
Here's an analogy: You've got a gaping wound that won't stop bleeding, so you apply a little pressure, and the bleeding slows, so you let the pressure off to see if there's still bleeding and the wound starts bleeding again. Either tie the damn thing off and don't check it till it clots or let it bleed. By sitting on the fence you just bleed to death more slowly. Yeah, our troops are doing good things over there, but we didn't do enough, or didn't do it right, and that's water under the bridge. We can't tear off the guaze to check the bleeding, but the bleeding hasn't stopped and... we... we are getting dizzy...
To argue for "success" or "victory" you have to believe that pacified urban areas under military control will then "come to their senses" and realize violence is wrong and politics is right.You have to believe that the government and elected leaders and religious leaders and clan leaders can sit down and negotiate as representatives of the people and these same "people" will accept this settlement.This all seems so rational and practical and reasonable to us sitting in our comfortable, secular society.You have to believe a "nation" exists which must be saved even if it means compromise and relinquishing power and wealth.
This form of occupation will look like the worst form of colonial occupation, British in India or Ireland, French in Algeria, Dutch in S.Africa, Hitler in Poland, Soviets in Czechoslavakia, you get the picture.Benevolent intentions are always expressed, great hopes are always in place, lousy outcomes always follow.Apollo needs history, not medical analogy.
Post a Comment