Fools on the Hill
By Joe Mariani (02/20/07)
So President Bush puts the Army's top expert on counter-insurgency in charge of our forces in Iraq, and begins sending him additional troops to help pacify Baghdad. The politically-correct "rules of engagement" that have prevented the troops from doing their jobs effectively are lightened. Al-Qaeda in Iraq's leader is reportedly wounded, and his deputy killed. Moqtada al-Sadr suddenly remembers a pressing engagement in Iran, hikes up his robes and runs for the border.
In the meantime, Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei makes special television appearances to predict that America will soon run away from his friends in Iraq, stating that we "will be the principal loser in the region." Al-Qaeda releases tapes gleefully predicting America's imminent withdrawal. How do Democrats respond -- by showing solidarity with the Commander-in-Chief and backing an American victory in Iraq? Of course not. Instead, Democrats respond to the new push not by working to help America prevail, but by doing everything humanly possible to make our enemies' wishes come true.
Most Democrats in Congress and even some Republicans have decided to lose the fight in Iraq against insurgents, Iran-backed thugs, Ba'ath party loyalists and al-Qaeda agents -- there's no other way to put it. However, they lack the guts to simply halt funding for the war, which would be their duty if they truly thought the battle was lost. Some 40 years ago, a Democrat-controlled Congress pulled funding in order to throw the Vietnam War even as we were winning -- as was their right under the Constitution -- and they paid a well-deserved political price for it. This time, they will attempt to kneecap the President and force defeat on our troops while avoiding responsibility and the ensuing political fallout.
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a "non-binding resolution," one that carries no force of law. The pointless resolution demanded that the President not send additional troops to Iraq, although that is our best chance to prevent the entire country from being taken over by thugs and killers from Iran and al-Qaeda. Instead, the President is urged to "have the Iraqi political leaders make ... political compromises" with Iran, Syria and (I suppose) al-Qaeda. What good can that possibly do anyone except the enemy?
The troops Congress doesn't want sent are already on their way. General David Petraeus, whose plan to send additional troops to stamp out the Iran-fomented unrest in Baghdad was the main reason for his appointment, was overwhelmingly approved as overall commander in Iraq by the very same politicians who now plan to undercut him. Luckily, there were enough Republicans left in the Senate desirous of victory to prevent the Democrats and the turncoat Republicans from approving a similar measure. But that was not the end of the "rush to defeat," not by a long shot.
Instead of defunding the war outright, Democrats in the House will likely try to implement John Murtha's (D-PA) "slow bleed" strategy. They will try to limit the equipment, funding and reinforcements that can be sent to our troops in combat, even as the troops need those things to continue the fight. Personnel who are wounded or rotated out will not be easily replaced, nor will used or damaged weapons, ammunition, vehicles, medical supplies or clothing. We'll be lucky if the last American troops to leave Iraq don't do so hungry and ragged, throwing rocks at the enemy as they go. What Murtha and his cronies don't want you to consider is the fact that it's American troops, the troops they piously claim to support, who will be doing the bleeding and dying if his "slow bleed" plan is implemented.
The Senate is not likely to defund the military, either directly or by slowly leaching away their support. Instead, Senators who wish to lose may try to control the military by introducing bills to limit the number of troops that can be sent to Iraq, or to restrict the troops to defensive actions only. It's even possible the Democrats may try to amend the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that was voted into law in October 2002. In other words, the troops will remain fully funded, but unable to take any direct action, even armed patrols, without explicit approval from Congress. That would be in direct opposition to the Constitution, which gives the President authority to conduct war, and Congress the authority to pull funding if they feel it necessary.
Of course, the fact that we are no longer fighting Iraq, but various groups funded and supplied by outside agencies attempting to re-enslave the Iraqi people, means little to the anti-war crowd -- one fight is just like another, and all "enemies" are morally equivalent to our own troops anyway. If those politicians who still want to defeat our enemies don't filibuster any bills designed to force a compromise with them, President Bush would likely veto them -- even if the Senate ties them to appropriations in an attempt to make Bush "responsible" for defunding the troops. It's all about avoiding responsibility, while working against our own military forces in the midst of combat to make points with the Democrats' far-Left base.
Playing political games while our troops slowly run out of equipment and are unable to rotate fresh troops into Iraq as need dictates is the worst betrayal of this country ever perpetrated, including defunding the war in Vietnam. At least those politicians didn't have the consequences of previous withdrawal -- millions of deaths in southeast Asia and forty years of national pain -- to consider. It's unthinkable... and yet, if we don't think about it, that's exactly what will happen again. We may be beaten in Iraq not by our enemies, but by our own self-serving, short-sighted politicians.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-02_cy-2007_m-02_d-20_y-2007_o-0.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Joe Mariani
