Political Will - Transforming Iraq (Part I)

Iraq.  Just the word in any conversation brings up a good deal of emotions and strong debate.  Here in America the war in Iraq has become a non-stop argument from the Main Stream Media to the halls of Congress to the conversations among family members, co-workers and friends. 

However, the Democratic Party leadership has decided that it is time to declare Iraq a loss and discuss timetables of withdrawal.  Here is a sampling of their comments and proposals:

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA and former Democratic Presidential 2004 nominee) along with Sen. Jack Reid (D-RI) held a news conference according to the Washington Post. "'No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins," Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush's speech. 'No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.'"
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-SF and Democratic Minority Leader) introduced legislation to set a timetable to bring US service-members home according to this SF Gate article. "'From the start, I've thought this war was a grotesque mistake,'' said Pelosi, who voted against the autumn 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to launch military operations against Saddam Hussein's regime. 'The question now is about the execution of the war. It's hard for anyone to argue that the war meets the standard of a strategy for success.''" Ms. Pelosi, according to the WaPo link above also stated, "We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."
• Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) a former decorated Vietnam veteran and original supporter of the war said in a press conference: "When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us. They throw a hand grenade or a rocket into American forces and the people run into the crowd and they -- nobody tells them where they are.  I am convinced, and everything that I've read, the conclusion I've reached is there will be less terrorism, there will be less danger to the United States and it'll be less insurgency once we're out."
• DNC Chair and former 2004 Democratic Presidential hopeful Howard Dean said "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

This is tantamount to leaders of the Republican Party in 1944 asking President Roosevelt for a timetable to bring the troops home from Europe and the Pacific Theater, which of course never happened.  It is impossible to argue that the war must be won while arguing for a timetable to retreat.   The Democrats listed above are far from the ideal of John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address who promised "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." [see DEL post regarding here]

While a good portion of the Democratic Party has united behind a message of defeat on Iraq, there is one glaring exception: Senator Joe Lieberman.  Sen. Lieberman "In public statements and a newspaper column... argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a 'colossal mistake' for the Democratic leadership to 'lose its will' at this critical point in the war."

The Democratic argument is made up of elements of the following:

The war is unjust

The War is unwinnable

Victory is not worth the cost

The Bush Administration is incapable of winning the war and is untrustworthy

These are major claims and need to be addressed along with the Bush administration's responses, the facts on the ground in Iraq, and the record to date. 

Part I lays out the Democratic charge of failure and call to withdrawal from Iraq.  Part II will address where we stand in the battle to secure a democratic Iraq and the political resolve of the Bush administration to win at what cost.

Comments

[Michael Turton]

This is tantamount to leaders of the Republican Party in 1944 to ask President Roosevelt for a timetable to bring the troops home from Europe and the Pacific Theater, which of course never happened.

No, it is tantamount to politicians opposing US involvement in Vietnam asking for withdrawal in 1967 or so. Which of course, never happened.

[Bill Rice]

Michael,

Thank you for your comment. However, I do believe it is very different from Vietnam. The goal of the Vietnam War was to keep the North from controlling the South and thereby supporting our South Vietnam ally.

Iraq is more akin to the Second World War. The US deposed Saddam Hussein in Iraq and is working to achieve a "democratic" Iraq from the ground up.

Vietnam was a war to contain communism along George Kennan's containment/domino theory. Democratizing Iraq from a brutal dictatorship in the heart of a very non-democratic Middle East to change a region.

Vietnam was a war of escalation. Iraq is anything but. The US committed a massive force to win the war and keep the peace.

Considering that the US and Iraqi interim government hit their benchmarks for two elections and a draft consititution with overwhelming turnout, it is difficult to see how this translates into a "cut and run" foreign policy now being articulated by the Democrats.

I look forward to posting Part II of this series to explore further.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

[Ed Rice]

That's a great point about Democrats turning their backs on John Kennedy's eloquent commitment to "pay any price, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." In effect, the Democrats appear to have taken the side of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, becoming hypocritical supporters of freedom and true enemies of it in the United States.

[http://beatroot.blogspot.com/]

You summarize the Democrats arguments well, but you forgot one – they think that the war makes Americans less safe at home. As you say, their position says that ‘it isn’t worth it’ or ‘we can’t win it’ etc.

I think they have a completely unprincipled opposition to the war. You won’t be hearing them argue for Iraq’s national sovereignty, the right to Iraqi self determination, that armed intervention destabilizes nations, weakens an already weak civil society, breaks up post-colonial nations back into tribal parts, makes the population feel even weaker and more helpless than they did under a dictatorship, etc.

They can’t argue that case because Clinton (and Blair) bombed and invaded even more countries than Bush has. And at least Bush didn’t invade Iraq because he had a bit of trouble with an ex-intern. (Balkans, Sudan…)

The Democratic opposition is all about ‘us’ and not what it should be about, ‘them’. And it should be up to the Iraqis if, when and how the occupation should end, not Democrats, Republicans…

[Tom the Redhunter]

I've always thought the best analogy was to the Civil War from the North's perspective.

When Lincoln decided to take back the South, the (northern)Democrats were on board. When the war proved more difficult than anticipated, they backed off. In their 1864 presidential party platform the Democrats were advocating a cessation of hostilities and a negotiated peace. Although their candidate, George McClellan, repudiated the platform, I have little doubt he would have negotiated a peace with the south - one that by definition would have left slavery in place, this time with an ironclad guarantee

The war grew unpopular with the people, too. The Union Army was unable to meet it's recruiting goals and resorted to a draft. The draft was so unpopular that riots broke out in NYC in 1864 that killed scores.

Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election of 1864 over the war issue, but fortunately for him a few Union victories(Sherman took Atlanta, for example) turned the tide of public opinion.

Imagine if we'd listened to the Democrats of 1864?

[Zsa Zsa]

Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry etc. should be ashamed! BUT...They are not. The anti-americanism that spews from these so called leaders of our country is sad!... These individuals are nothing more than a group of inferior politicians! They can't get over the FACT that Republicans are the majority and will stop at nothing to further their own agenda! Sad but true...

[Bill Rice]

Tom,

Excellent analysis. I had not thought of the challenges Lincoln faced during the Civil War.

So maybe it is true that there "is nothing new under the sun" as far as politics goes.

Nevertheless, it is such a short sighted policy and so fraught with self-interest as to be blatantly transparent.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

[Bruce Chang]

Congresswoman Pelosi purports to make our military stronger by bringing it home and never doing anything with it? With all due respect to our brave soldiers, those against the war and those in favor alike, the point of having a military is to create a credible threat. The best way to strengthen a military force is to show enemies that they will be engaged, rather than sitting at home getting fat.

The Democratic strategy is to turn the military from an instrument of national policy into a constituency to be drawn upon during an election.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party is all about U.S. elections, and nothing else. They don't care if their policies are good or bad as long as they can use it to increase their constituency.

[ugg]

decision to go to work for Russian-owned Gazprom. However,

[Miosonita]

they're there to stay for a long time...

[Chanel Mens Watches]

Iraq is the other name of war, hope it can be stop

[UGG]

I’ve found that sometimes a good visual can make all the difference to a blog post, so I’m always sure to include at least one. They brighten the place up a little too.

[Polo Outlet Online]

A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one.