I think ^(link) therefore I err

Sunday, October 15, 2006

The War in Iraq

Today in the Washington Post John Murtha takes the GOP to task for the "Defeatocrats" label that's been placed on the Democrats.
It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure.
Here's the deal Mr. Murtha, you may well have voted in 2002 for military action in Iraq, however, since around May of 2003 you and your ilk have not been supporting this war. You guys were ready to leave BEFORE the elections that were held there. You were certain they were going to be bloodbath and you wanted nothing to do with it.

If all of America were on the side of "we will win this war in the end and Iraq will become a stable democracy" this war would be over in half the time. There is of course nothing wrong with disagreeing with the administration on how the war is fought. But each time someone in a respectable position speaks out about leaving the Iraqis to their fate, or wishing for the good old days of Sadaam it encourages those perpetuating the violence. We've seen it in their communiques. We've heard it from their kidnap victims.

Blame Bush? Yeah maybe. The buck stops there and he's no uniter. But frankly I see him trying and he gets no credit for it. From Murtha:
The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. It's not even a plan. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010.
Sounds like a new plan to me. And I've seen other new directions and new paths all over the country. From divide and conquer to get on the people's good side. Even Secretary Rice let it be known in Iraq just the other day that we don't have infinite patience. "Stay the course" is shorthand for "we're not leaving you", not "we will continue this exact playbook from now until 2010".

From Murtha:
Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end.
Um, the democratically elected govt of Iraq has specifically requested that we stay in country. Are we to change all of our foreign policies to reflect what the polls want throughout the world?

For this column Murtha lists the respected folks who want to see a "new direction" in Iraq and asks if they too are "Defeatocrats". Well no sir, they aren't. These folks are seeing that the current course is not a strong winning course. But are they saying we should leave Iraq to the wolves? No. And that would be the difference between them and you and other "Defeatocrats". You want to leave. Chuck Rangel wants to quit paying the bills and hence force us to leave.

Final quote:
Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.
Nicely ended Mr. Murtha. And the crux of the problem. You are right. The democrats are fighting these two wars and neither one of them are the actual wars that the US of A are fighting. We all lose for it.

UPDATE: Tim Blair notes that Ned Lamont doesn't realize that Australia is in on this war. lol