US Military Consequences Of Anticipated Democrat Iraq Policy

Posted on November 15, 2006

Iraq policy will now be made by the Democrat Party through the Congressional “power of the purse.” What does that hold for military morale and future US Military operations? The following item was published on August 21, 2005 by the “Security and Peace Initiative.”

8. Americans’ willingness to use military force – Iraq as a failed state is likely to herald an era of deep reservations among the U.S. public regarding the use of force – - a kind of post-Vietnam, post-Mogadishu hangover. While this Administration has made the prospect of greater circumspection in the use of force very attractive, a level of public skepticism that makes it impossible to intervene to prevent genocide or stop live conflicts from further spreading could result in more Rwandas and Bosnias.

9. Military morale – Military morale has already been damaged by a conflict that put our troops at risk without adequate preparation or equipment, that has disrupted families and livelihoods through long extensions in tours of duty. The unexpected difficulties confronted on the battlefield have provoked a crisis of confidence in Pentagon leadership. Despite their frustration, those who have served want to be sure that their sacrifices result in an Iraq that’s better off. If, after all this, Iraq devolves into a failed state the blow to the military will be brutal.

Just who is the “Security and Peace Initiative?”

The Security and Peace Initiative (SPI) – a joint initiative of the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation – works to advance a responsible U.S. foreign policy based on a strong defense, collective security, capable international institutions, and effective promotion of democracy and the rule of law. With offices in New York and Washington, SPI places emphasis on identifying and promoting emerging voices in progressive foreign policy. SPI is led by Director Morton H. Halperin, and co-chaired by Gary Hart and Madeleine Albright.

The one thing I would add is that the election results from last week have already been brutal to US Military morale. This is 1973 all over again and it will take a generation to erase the collective memory of the uniformed military.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “US Military Consequences Of Anticipated Democrat Iraq Policy”

Amy Proctor on November 15th, 2006 3:19 pm

This is absolutely correct. As a military wife, the elections have devastated my moral, although the soldiers are tougher than I. If this were an ordinary election, i.e., not during war time, dealing with Republican losses would be a matter of fact. It’s happened before and will happen again.

But for all the talk of “we support the troops”, this sends an incredibly confusing message to the guys serving in Iraq in particular, and also Afghanistan. If “we” support the troops, why did we just give a high five to their enemy whom they fight on the ground on a daily basis? If “we” support the troops, why did we just cement the theory that pulling out of Iraq is best, making every military death truly in vain? Everybody knows the Democrats do NOT support the troops except in rhetoric when they consistently parrot the identical talking points of Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, other al-Qaeda leadership and the rest of America’s enemies. Part of the problem is, of course, Democrats are too concerned with understanding the terrorists, never referring to them as such and giving them constitutional rights to plot to blow us out of the water. Democrats do not recognize that we actually HAVE an enemy. Nancy Pelosi said last week about the Dem plan for Iraq, “This isn’t a war to win, it’s a situation to solve. And you define ‘winning’ any way you want, but you must solve this problem.” So Democratic leadership cannot even define “winning” and don’t see this as a war. Why? Because they’re too sympathetic with the enemy. Yes, this makes soldiers feel very supported.

I lived through the Clinton presidency. My husband enlisted in 1993. It was bad, because no one respected the commander in chief and the only big government jobs Clinton boasted of slashing were, you guessed it, MILITARY POSITIONS. National defense became weakened and our commander in brief’s reputation throughout the world made soldiers feel embarrassed to travel abroad. But they sucked it up.

This, however, is devastating not just in morale but in reality. I can take the Dems ruining the phenomenal economy or screwing up health care and education, but a withdrawal would make every soldiers’ death totally in vain. Cindy Sheehan will get her wish. We have Iraqi friends my husband made from his year in Baghdad with the 82nd ABN DIV. I got an e-mail from a Catholic Iraqi priest, Fr. Bashar, just before the election saying, “Vote Bush”. He said we cannot pull out because Iraqi blood will be spilled in the streets like we’ve never seen. I know what he meant by “Vote Bush”. Vote Republican because voting Democrat could have horrible consequences.

That President Bush can veto any withdrawal legislation and Congress doesn’t have the votes to override his veto, unless a large amount of Republicans abandon us again.