There was a time in this country’s history when both political parties claimed that "politics ended at the water’s edge." Even in times of great domestic political strife, past generations of politicians closed ranks when it came to confronting foreign foes. I’d like to believe that’s still true, but evidence to the contrary keeps piling up.
After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and losing several thousand lives, anything but a clear cut victory in Iraq will no doubt be costly, in terms of political capital, to President Bush and any politician who supported his invasion and reconstruction policies. Is it possible that some Democrats have made a political calculation, reckoning a United States defeat in Iraq equals a Democratic victory at home? And is it possible these same Democrats are therefore doing what they can to insure our failure in Iraq so as to restore the political majorities they enjoyed a generation ago? These hard questions have, of course, already been asked, and the Democratic response has been vitriolic. The rejoinders run from "how dare anyone question our patriotism" to "continued fighting in Iraq is hurting America and we must therefore stop" to "the war is already lost." I am not eager to assign such blame to America’s left, for to do so is to accuse tens of millions of Americans of treason. Nevertheless, one commentator has posited a reasonable question, one that has not yet been satisfactorily answered to my knowledge. If the Democrats were attempting to traitorously insure our defeat in Iraq, what would they be doing and saying different from their current actions and statements? The answer to that troubling challenge is speculative, but the Democrats have amassed a history of Iraq war opposition, one that is troubling to say the least.
Let’s review. A sitting Democratic Senator has compared our military personnel to the infamous German Gestapo of WWII, a blatantly false construction that could only aid our enemy. Imagine an Al Qaeda recruiting poster: "U.S. Senator admits Americans are as bad as Nazis." The 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee stated that American troops were breaking into Iraqi homes in the middle of night, "terrorizing Iraqi women and children." Senator Kerry incomprehensibly went on to say such missions should be carried out by Iraqi soldiers. His use of the word "terrorizing" is particularly disconcerting in that he — let’s give him the benefit of the doubt — unwittingly ceded the moral high ground. The message was, "We are no better than our terrorist enemies." All this while American men and women were fighting and dying in the field.
A never refuted claim is that the only way America can lose in Iraq is to stop fighting, the very course of action Democrats have been proposing for several years now. Another claim, conjuring up nightmarish visions of immense slaughter, is that a premature American departure from Iraq would plunge that country, and perhaps the entire region, into a years-long killing spree of unimaginable proportions. Worse, our demise in Iraq may very well result in its becoming Al Qaeda’s favorite base of operations, one to which we could never return. Once we are out of Iraq, we will be forever out. If the reason for that isn’t clear, try to imagine an American return to Vietnam. Why would anyone advocate an American pull-out with possible repercusions too ugly to contemplate and with disastrous consequences for America in the future? Political advantage? We hope not.
Now we have the Petraeus report, and at least two Democrats have impugned the General’s integrity, claiming the report was filtered through the White House and that the General cherry-picked data, thereby, essentially, falsifying the report. These are unsubstantiated charges directed at the commander of all American forces in Iraq. Again, why would any ranking American politician undermine a top General in wartime? To borrow the duck adage, if it looks treasonous and acts treasonous, maybe it’s treason. Someone say it isn’t so.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Politics