Strategy For Defeat
Techniguy - 11-26-2005
Once again, Democrats are calling for an “exit strategy”. They are calling it an “Exit Strategy” but really it’s a strategy for defeat. There are only two ways you can exit from a war, either you win or you loose. There is no such thing as just walking away and calling it an “Exit Strategy”. That’s what we did in Vietnam and history has recorded our loss of that war. Is this what Democrats want to happen with Iraq? Absolutely, no doubt about it. The last thing they want is another victory for President Bush.
Just over a week ago, John Murtha stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and proposed his plan for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But this was not his plan, only part of it was written by Murtha. The main thrust of the recommendation was written by Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, who had recruited Murtha to deliver her irresponsible and naïve views because of his military experience, thinking that would lend creditability to her plan. What it actually did was to degrade and discredit Murtha down to the level of John Kerry. Had Murtha actually been the hawk they are portraying him as, he would have switched to the Republican party a couple of years ago. The fact is that Murtha, although originally voting for the war, has been against it since we invaded Iraq. When you read Murtha’s proposal, you can clearly see the contrast between his paragraphs and Pelosi’s.
In an effort to appease Democrats failed proposal in the Senate, Republicans came up with their own less demanding and restrictive plan for Congress’s interference in the business of the Defense Dept. and the war in Iraq. The Republican Senate version called for quarterly progress reports on the war be submitted to Congress, and troop reductions to be considered in 2006. It also called for the President to make clear that US troops will stay no longer than necessary. Well of course, why would he leave troops there when they weren’t needed? Democrats seem to think that the President wanted to send troops into harm’s way for some unexplained reason other than the security of our nation. What reason? At first it was all about oil but they gave up on that when we didn’t take it. Now they give no reason at all, “he just wanted to send our soldiers to die”. Yeah, right!
In the following week, Congressman Jane Harman (D-CA) came up with her own plan for withdrawal from Iraq after a vote in the House showed that there was little support for the Pelosi/Murtha plan for immediate withdrawal. Harman’s plan is a little more tolerant but just as irresponsible and would result in the same defeat for America. In a letter sent out to her California constituents entitled “Needed: A strategy for an exit from Iraq”, Harman says:
The recent Senate vote to require the Administration to provide detailed reporting to Congress on Iraq and make clear that the U.S. will not stay longer “than required” puts Iraq back on Congress’s agenda.
There is now strong bipartisan consensus that we need an exit strategy. But yet to emerge is the content of that strategy.
On the contrary, there is no strong bipartisan consensus on the need for an exit strategy, that is not what the measure that passed said. What it really said was that there is a strong consensus to appease Democrats who are as eager for a US defeat in the Senate as they are in the House. Iraq should not be on Congresses agenda at all. It is the business of the Defense Dept. which does not need Congress trying to tell them how to run a war.
Harman’s letter also included the statement:
“President Bush should state unequivocally that the U.S. does not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Our 60-year presence in Germany and our 50-year presence in Korea rightfully make people nervous that a half-century from now, American Marines will be living on a base in downtown Baghdad. The President should put that to rest – and make clear that U.S. policy is to leave Iraq completely.”
I find it astounding that Harman could be so naïve as to think that we should leave Iraq completely without maintaining a base there to help with Iraqi security and to have a base of operations for the defense of other US interests in the Middle East. It seems clear that what Harman and the Democrats want is for there to be absolutely no American presence in the Middle East at all so that the region can be taken over by terrorists and return to rule by dictators and tyrants not friendly to the United States. It boggles the mind to see people who call themselves American leaders proposing such an ignorant and disastrous concept. The proposal clearly proves that Congress has no clue about the defense needs of our country and no business interfering in the affairs of the Defense Dept.
Harman goes rattling on about how the President should make it clear that the US has no designs on taking Iraqi oil, that we should help get Iraqi oil flowing for the people of Iraq, that we should get other nations to help with reconstruction, and it goes on and on about things that we are already doing, have tried to do, or have no intentions of doing in the best interests of our country. She suggests that “the President should redouble diplomatic efforts to get allies and partners to come into Iraq to share the burden for security and infrastructure. Internationalizing our efforts will take the target off our back and make it easier for us to leave. But it will only work if we cede control over contracts and encourage significant foreign participation in the vast work of reconstructing Iraq.”
Didn’t we already learn that other countries capable of doing this work such as France and Germany are not interested in “taking the target off our back” and putting on theirs? Haven’t we already learned that the UN cannot be trusted to manage this operation? Haven’t we been through all this before and found that what it comes down to is; if we want it done right, we have to do it ourselves with the help of a few trusted allies. Indeed, it does seem that the Democrat memory is as short on the events relating to Iraq as it is on their positions of support for pre war intelligence and the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001. The use of selective memory is vital to their agenda of trying to win elections without a plan for America.
But I need to emphasize her words here; “make it easier for us to leave”. This shows the real problem with Democrat thinking. Their goal is simply to leave, not to win. Once again, this shows exactly why Democrats cannot be trusted with our national security, as became clear in the 2004 elections. The don’t have the conviction or strength of will to fight for freedom and democracy and win. They would refuse to engage in a war without a predetermined timetable and “Exit Strategy” as though it were a football game. They cannot be allowed to dictate their appeasement policies to our Defense Dept. and interfere with their mission or they will certainly turn Iraq into another Vietnam, just as they did before.
All this comes on the heals of the McCain Amendment that was added to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2006 which passed the Senate on Oct. 5th. The amendment for kit glove treatment of enemy combatants forbids any interrogation methods that might be too uncomfortable for detainees with vital defense information, under any circumstances, even if that information could prevent a massive terrorist attack on our country. And let’s not forget the restrictions and threat of punishment of soldiers for killing enemies who may be hiding a grenade or bomb under their clothes or blanket. We are fighting an enemy who has no rules or restrictions, yet our military and intelligence personnel are being bound more and more by restrictions on their ability to fight an effective war. Not only are they being severely restricted in how they can fight, but are hearing in the media that many in our own Congress do not support what they are doing and want them out of there. This has created more anger among the troops toward Congress and the media than they have toward the enemy. They know well what they are fighting for, liberals do not.
What is going on here? Is this any way to execute a war? Further, is this any way to win a war? We need to take a step back from the details and rhetoric and think about the overall picture. We have an enemy out there who is trying to kill us. We are already engaged in war with them. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to win that war and kill that enemy instead of being overly concerned with his safety, comfort, and dignity? If Congress really wants to help our country, why aren’t they working on ways to give our intelligence and military more latitude to be more effective instead of less?
Has nothing been learned from Vietnam? Apparently not on the Democratic side of Congress except how to loose a war without leaving our shores. They know the war can be lost in Congress and the media and that is precisely what they are trying to do. Every restriction they come up with in Congress makes it that much harder to win, and makes our enemy laugh at us just that much more. I find it internationally embarrassing when Democrats get involved in war. They should confine themselves to things they know something about, like the arts and music and leave war to those who understand it.
In the 1991 Gulf War, we had learned the lessons of Vietnam. Swift and overwhelming force got the job done fast. In Operation Iraqi Freedom we did it again and took Baghdad in a matter of days. When we encountered the enemy we killed or captured them and pushed on to our goal. We didn’t worry about their comfort, safety, or dignity, so why are we so concerned about it now? Could it be that now that victory is in sight, it scares the hell out of Democrats to think that Bush might gain more support if we exit Iraq by winning the war first? Dems are doing everything they can now to try to promote a cut and run withdrawal before that happens. The US is perfectly capable of fighting and winning a war efficiently and swiftly until Congress gets involved. Once that happens, everything goes to pot. Or in the case of Vietnam it was Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
When was the last time you heard any suggestion by a Democrat on how to win the war? I’ll tell you when, never. It is not in their mentality, reality, or agenda to win wars for America but rather to avoid being involved in them at any cost. And make no mistake about it, that cost includes the freedom and liberty of America and all of our allies. Liberals do not believe that some things are worth fighting for and that includes their country. If this interference by Congressional Democrats continues much longer, we can all expect some day in the not too distant future to be bowing down to the East 5 times a day and be limited to beef bacon with our eggs for breakfast.
If Congress was really interested in winning the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home, it wouldn’t be that hard to do. We already know that the enemy in Iraq is being supported both financially and with foreign manpower from various Islamic countries by sources in Syria. So why is Syria exempt from this war? It doesn’t stop at the border for Syria and it shouldn’t stop at the border for US and Iraqi troops either. We already made that mistake in Vietnam with the Cambodian border. We will never win this war by simply killing terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. We need to cut them off at the source of their money, supplies, and manpower, then those remaining in Iraq will simply dry up and die.
It was reported on Fox News recently that US troops have crossed the Syrian border in pursuit of terrorists who are using Syria as a safe refuge. We cannot continue to allow them this sanctuary where they can rearm and re-supply with money and weapons. There is some 'new media' talk now of expanding the war into Syria to put a stop to it‘s support of radicals in Iraq. Action against Syria would be the best thing we could do and would put a stop to the insurgents and terrorists coming into Iraq. It would also give us a chance to find those WMDs that are suspected of being hidden there. The best thing we could do right now would be to invade Syria and end the terrorism that is being spawned and supported there. Liberals would be screaming their head off but the rest of us would unite behind the president for finally taking significant action and doing what needs to be done to win this war.
It would be more than beneficial toward ending the war in Iraq, it would change the face of politics globally. It would stop the insurgency from coming across the border and those still left in Iraq would die off without Syrian support. The war in Iraq would end. Once in Syria, we could confirm whether or not Saddam's WMDs are there. If we find them it would vindicate Bush of the "Bush lied" charges and prove that the war in Iraq was well justified. It would destroy the entire Democrat agenda of 'get Bush' for invading Iraq. It would be the final solution to the current conflict both domestic and abroad and would unite the country once it becomes obvious that President Bush was justified in taking the Iraq threat seriously.
I have always contended that in spite of a majority of politicians on both sides accepting that "intelligence information was flawed and wrong" regarding Saddam's WMDs, there is still no proof to support this contention. This whole premise is simply based on the fact that we didn't find huge stockpiles of WMD when we got there. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that Saddam’s WMDs were moved out of the country just prior to our arrival. This evidence has, for the most part, been ignored and swept under the rug by the media. This issue needs a thorough investigation by the military if necessary - whatever it takes to get to the truth, which so far has not been done. We need to find out once and for all what happened to the WMD we know Saddam had, that the whole world knew he had. If the rhetoric that there were no WMDs in country since the 90s is true, then that needs to be proven as well. Either way, the answer to this lingering question should be at the top of the Bush agenda, and no one should simply assume that there were no WMD without proof. It is almost unbelievable that even the Bush Administration has fallen for this unsupported assumption and accepted it as proven fact when it certainly is not.
The media will support whatever the Democrats say. What we need to change the face of politics is to locate Saddam's WMDs wherever they are by whatever means necessary. Doesn’t it matter what became of them? Doesn’t anyone care that they may be accessible to terrorists? Is it really the position of Democrats that they prefer to tell the world that “Bush Lied about WMD to get us into war", rather than to protect the world from them? There needs to be a thorough investigation into the reports of them being moved to Syria and send the military in there to find them if needed. The question of what became of them is still unanswered and until it is, Democrats are going to continue to claim "Bush lied" and the media will eat it up.
This is my “Exit Strategy”: Expand the war into Syria and give them a piece of what Iraq got. Eliminate the terrorist support groups headquartered there. Go to the sites where WMDs are suspected of being buried and find them. Secure the borders of both countries and let Iran know that it would be in their own best interests to stay on their side of the Iraq border. We have allowed the Democrats to drag us into a position of weakness and disgrace in the Middle East long enough. It’s high time we stood up and showed proper American strength and determination to meet our goals of liberty, freedom, and finally peace in the Middle East in spite of them.
To see other Newsletter articles, JOIN the mailing list, or be REMOVED from the list go to