Iraq, GOP Must Not Be Don Quixote
Posted on November 10, 2006
Dr. Sanity writes “REDEPLOYMENT’S JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR ‘CUT AND RUN’” and she is correct.
AJ Strata writes, “Dems Face First Challenge With Base:”
The people who voted for the Dems bought into their PR hype that they would be withdrawaling from Iraq. You can read it everwhere, and there have been votes on the issue. But before they have even been sworn into office, the dems are showing their two-faced nature by promising the Iraqi President they will not push to remove the troops. And we know Bush is not going to do it. Nancy and Harry have some ’splaining to do. They misled someone here. Was it the voters or the Iraqis? The Reps took a pounding because they will not lie to the voters. The voters think we are getting out of Iraq.
So where does that lead the GOP? First, we took a pounding during the election for standing up and doing the right thing. We lost and the victors do get the spoils. Before we develop our unified position it is extremely important that everyone understand how the Democrats will take us out of Iraq. Howard Dean provided the first clue last year that will be extremely popular with the electorate:
Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
In June I wrote “(CONFIRMED) Major US Troop Reduction in Iraq “Announced” by GEN Abrams.” That post is extremely important and should be reviewed. The importance is that todays Army can not go to war without the Reserve Component. If the Democrats force the demobilization of the Reserve Components in SW Asia or simply let events take their course due to the maximum mobilization of 24 months, we will be unable to continue operations in Iraq.
Most everyone is familiar with John Murtha’s plan to “redeploy to Okinawa” which makes little sense in todays modern warfare because it takes the “same amount of time” to put boots on the ground in SW Asia if you are in Okinawa or Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
What else can the Democrats do to compel an Iraq pullout? They can do what was done in the 70’s and that was selectively defund key military budget items. An easy example, though it would be glaring, would be to simply stop the funding of military petroleum purchases for Iraq. They would not do that example, I am just using it as an easy to understand example.
Since the election, I have heard from many friends that are in Iraq. Soldiers are convinced that we are pulling out of Iraq and we are not staying to complete the mission. What types of soldiers are saying this? Well, the guys that are my friends are senior NCOs, Warrant Officers and all of the Field Grade Ranks. Mostly Combat Arms guys. Yes, we have heard the Presidents comments.
Today, al Queda in Iraq has released a tape, that is no doubt being released to spur along the American electorate to get the troops out of Iraq:
“The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God’s sake” said Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, in an audio tape made available on militant web sites.
Do I think violence in Iraq will increase because of the election? Absolutely because they have learned that violence, with the help of the media, gives them victory. Will Us Forces fight valiantly on in Iraq? No, for two reasons. First we go back to that 1970’s question, “Do you want to be the last man to die for a losing cause?” Second, we have John Murtha, a man who accused Marines of murder, that have never been charged or placed in chains. That has created a toxic environment where there is a distinct fear that any action you take that is not clear cut will result in yourself facing prosecution.
So where does that leave the GOP and like minded activists on the path forward with Iraq? First, we must recognize that when the existing budget expires, all the Democrats have to do is simply not provide the money for operations to continue. There is nothing for the President to veto.
Here is what I have formulated as a “GOP” position statement that I call, “Soldiers First:”
1.) We are no longer the party in power, the electorate has spoken and has put Democrats into power to determine future Iraq policy. They were elected on a platform of “troop withdrawal.” However, we stand fast in that our original policy was correct.
Politically, we must constantly remind the electorate that the Democrats in the House have full control to determine Iraq policy. The Congress defunded Vietnam in 1975 against the control of President Ford. The Democrats can not be allowed to skate by blaming Bush.
2.) We can not get in the Democrats way of withdrawing troops because bluntly, it is not in our control and we can not stop it. Ergo, it is foolish to get in their way and it is the will of the electorate.
3.) We recognize that the platform” of troop withdrawal will only increase the violence against US Forces in Iraq. Unless/until the Democrats publicly repudiate their withdrawal platform, we need to support the full and prompt withdrawal of US Forces because it is wrong to leave soldiers on the field of battle when their mission is ill defined.
We do not support a partial withdrawal as that only creates a more dangerous situation for the remaining ground forces. It is also a major morale issue.
If there is going to be a pullout, it must be now and it must be complete.
4.) As a party, if the Democrats are going to “redeploy US Forces” we will challenge them to redeploy the forces back to the United States. It makes no sense to bring the troops to Okinawa because they can come home to the United States and still be deployed in the same time manner.
5.) The Republican House Whip needs to ensure that when the final budget is passed, that the GOP does not cast one vote for it. Let them be responsible for funding or stripping funding. We acn not give them cover in any form. We do not want the GOP to be on record of funding Iraq or defunding Iraq. Besides the budget will be unbalanced and bloated.
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Iraq, GOP Must Not Be Don Quixote”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Then what? Are we going to get the House to approve the funding of an issue of ammunition to every adult in the United States for when those 12,000 Al-Queda fighters (most of whom are not Iraquis, no matter what the dems like to pretend) decide to ‘take the fight to the United States’ since they can’t fight us in Iraq.
The necessity of having the Reserves on the ground when there is any warfighting to be done is a necessity created by first, a democratic congress, then by a democratic president, after the end of the Cold War. The force drawdown intitiated under Bush, and then continued under Clinton, left us without the Active Duty component Soldiers necessary to fight a war. And so far, the Republicans have not been able to convince their opposites in congress that any kind of strengthening of the Active Duty component is necessary.
Jay wrote:
“First, we took a pounding during the election for standing up and doing the right thing.”
I responded:
You should take the claims of the media with a grain of salt. The blue states are against the war in Iraq which is no real surprise. Iraq was probably a factor but not necessary the overwhelming one the media makes it. Of the Senate races the victories of the Democrats can be traced to other causes. Lincoln Chafee was against the way and still loss. He probably loss that race because the cultural conservatives voted against him. In Connecticut Lieberman who is pro Iraq war won by a land slide against anti Iraq war opponent. In both Ohio and Virginia low wages and high unemployment played a role. Other factors are that conservatives are angry about Republican unfaithfulness and did not vote or voted against them in order to punish them. Missouri was probably the stem cell amendment because the candidates lost and the stem cell loss was roughly the same margin. In Montana the Abramoff scandal probably played a large roll. In Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum’s loss had voter anger going against him because of GOP dominated state politicians giving themselves a raise and his support of the RINO Arlen Specter in 2004.
The details the media forgets to mention are very interesting.
I do not know enough about the House losses to say why the occurred but I am not taking the anti war media’s over generalization and the reason.
That is my opinion.
Kerwin, I didn’t write this one.