"The Democrats' Gonzales"

When liberals like David S. Broder are ready to throw Harry Reid overboard, you know the 'Rats ship has already started sinking just a few months into their honeymoon cruise.

From last Thursday's Washington Post:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.

Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."

He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.

Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

An Infinitely Worse Error

Last Wednesday night, we heard from some Iraq combat vets. They felt the cause they had fought for was noble and that thinsg in Iraq were gradually improving.

I would like to now submit the following simple questions to all those out there who are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, those that think Dick Cheney is the Antichrist, those that think Donald Rumsfeld is a boob, those that think we have wasted too much blood and treasure in Iraq already, those that think the pre-war intelligence was a lie, and those that think the Iraq war has been horribly mishandled. Let's suppose for a moment that all you believe is true. What next? Should we follow the lead of the Congressional Democrats and precipitously pull U.S. troops out of Iraq in Septmember 2008, no matter what? Is that the wisest course? And what would the consequences of such an action be?

“The Mesopotamian” is a blog run by an Iraqi civilian that goes by the name of “Alaa.” Back on August 14, 2005, he theorized what would happen in Iraq following a unilateral U.S. withdrawl. As you can see below, it’s a nightmare scenario.

Day 1: The American and other Multinational forces have almost completed withdrawing hastily, the decision having been taken by the U.S. administration to “cut and run” as it is said.

Day 2: The Anbar province - whole formations of Saddam’s previous organizations emerge from their holes and take control of the streets: Presidential Guards, Mukhabarat, Fedayeen Saddam, General Security, Private Security, Military intelligence, Party Units, etc. etc. ; in addition to Al -Qaida and various assortments of “Isalamists”. The whole of the province falls very quickly even before the last American soldier leaves Baghdad. The takeover takes place without any serious resistance apart from assassinations and murder of all those who are not entirely to the taste of the abovementioned. This takeover takes place over the entire western region right down to Abu Ghraib and Ghazaliya and other suburbs in Baghdad. Some fighting takes place in certain areas of Al-Anbar, but those tribes who were considered insufficiently hostile to the Americans and their friends, are quickly subdued with much bloodshed. In short the regime that is going to take over the country quickly takes shape in this region.

Other Parts of the Sunni Triangle: Similar situation develops in other areas such as Mosul, Tikrit, Sammara etc. in the North but with varying degrees of resistance and bloodshed, however the balance of force is in favor of the “insurgents”.

Diala Province: In the east considerable fighting and sectarian bloodshed, all civil services are disrupted and fighting continues.

South of Iraq: Badr Brigades, the Mahdi Army and various assortments of armed groups take to the streets and considerable fighting takes place near the southern approaches to Baghdad (the triangle of Death Latifya-Usufiya-Mahmodiya etc.) between Shiaa and Sunni groups, without any definite results initially.

Baghdad: All the middle class new neighborhoods start to be taken over by various armed groups with much looting and arson. This will be directly influenced by the speed of the U.S. army withdrawal; in particular the western part of Baghdad starting from Abu Ghraib right down to the up-scale Mansur Area.

The Mahdi Army and other Shiaa militias and tribal armed groups appear in the streets of Sadr City, Kadimiya and other neighborhoods with clear Shiaa majorities. In other mixed areas street fighting, looting ravaging and murder of families in their houses takes place on a large scale under various pretexes..Those who are weak and unarmed suffer most.

The little of electricity, water supply, sewerage and other municipal services, that there is comes to a complete halt. All shops, markets etc are closed and start to be looted.

Day 3:

The well defined main provincial areas, from the sectarian point of view, have quickly come under control of the various sectarian forces, Sunni ones in the Sunni areas and Shiaa in the Shiaa regions, and the most dangerous and destructive civil war in the history of Iraq has formally started, a war that will continue for many years and bring the country to a state worse than what followed the Mongol Invasion of Hollako in the 13th century. Ethnic and sectarian cleansing is going on within these areas with large scale movements of refugees from the various regions in all directions.

Days 4,5,6 etc.; and subsequent weeks, months and years.

It has become clear to everybody that the U.S. and other western powers are not going to come back, therefore the arena is free for all, so to speak. The Kurds withdraw into their mountainous region, and then decide to make a dash on Kirkuk. Fierce fighting erupts in and around Kirkuk, but the Kurds, being better organized and determined; initially succeed in controlling the town. Turkey cannot allow that so the Turkish army pours in from the North and the war starts between the Kurds and the Turks. The Turkish army advances quickly on Kirkuk through Mosul and after very bloody battles wrests control from the Kurds in the city. The Kurds retreat to the Mountains and start a classic guerilla war against the Turks. Turkey in effect occupies most of Northern Iraq.

Meanwhile vicious sectarian battles between Shiaa and Sunnis rage in and around Baghdad with tremendous bloodshed and huge numbers of civilians caught up in the fighting. Due to shut down of water supply the population of Baghdad starts to become desperate, and is under serious threat of thirst, so they leave their houses and flock to rivers, all that in the middle of raging battles in the streets. Organized gangs go around peoples’ homes checking identities and murdering whole families just because they happen to be Shiaa, Christian or Kurd (this is already actually happening, by the way, in a low key way in some areas).

Initially, the Sunni forces score some successes against the less organized and less experienced Shiaa forces in the Baghdad zone and south of it, despite the fierceness and carelessness about death of the latter. Hard pressed and threatened with extinction and having been abandoned by the West, the Shiaa’s have no other alternative but to turn towards the Iranians for protection. Iranian Revolutionary Guards start to pour in tens of thousands across the border to join the fighting. Soon the Iranians will be in virtual control of the entire south of Iraq and many parts of eastern Iraq. Likewise, the Kurds have no option but to turn to the Iranians in the face of the Turkish onslaught. On the other hand the previous trickle of arab terrorists and religious fanatics across the western and southern borders from Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia turns into a veritable torrent with tens and hundreds of southands pouring across to join their Sunni brothers. Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Sunni Iraqis, Shiaa Iraqis and Kurds all join in an infernal orgy of fighting destruction and death the like of which has seldom been seen.

All activities connected with oil exports from Iraq come to a complete standstill resulting in a world crisis and the rocketing of oil prices to above $ 100 a barrel at the least. Some oil fields burn and black smoke starts to spread all over the country reaching neighboring countries. The oil supplies in the entire region are jeopardized as fanaticism sweeps the region.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates and sympathizers throughout the world are jubilant, elated and drunk with the euphoria of a resounding victory against the U.S., Crusaders, Zionists, the Kafirs, the Shiaa and all other apstates. They transfer their entire cadres to the Sunni controlled areas of Iraq and establish themselves not as fugitives and underground movement but as an established force on the ground. Ripples are spread throughout the world and cells are preparing themselves to bring the battle to the very heartland of the Crusader Kafirs in The U.S. and Europe.

The U.S.A and her allies are completely discredited, and no one will ever think of putting any trust in them anywhere in the world in the future. In particular all factions involved in the fighting in Iraq will be vehemently anti-American and anti-western, especially erstwhile allies and friends who feel particularly betrayed and treacherously abandoned.

The U.S. and allied nations look on this general conflagration and explosion in the M.E. region with helpless dismay. It would take not 130 000 troops, nor one division or two or three to control such situation. All the resources of U.S., despite their tremendousness, will not suffice. It is then, that the American and Western people realize with shock and belated remorse, that if some considered the War on Iraq to be a mistake; the precipitate withdrawal and retreat is an infinitely worse error.

No matter the legitimacy of our cause to go to war in Iraq, it must now be won. As Ermest Hemingway stated, “Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.”

Thoughts from an evening at Outside the Wire: What It Means to Truly Support the Troops

In the context of the contemporary university campus, it takes bravery to present the particular side of things the WSU College Republicans showed to the WSU campus by screening Outside the Wire. It certainly is not bombs and bullets that our CR's have to face, which they admitted before the film rolled, but it would be wrong to dismiss as insignificant the social toll that comes with speaking truth to the left-indoctrinated around these parts. It’s an ugly job, but someone’s got to do it.

More than anything else I witnessed last night, it was this frank admission on the part of the CR’s - that they have not fought in the war they support – that struck me, bringing into sharper focus for me the importance of each individual's contributions to a war effort. Having been an infantry soldier, I was for a long time given to believing that only those of us of the "we've put up, the rest of you shut up" set had a legitimate say in and contribution to war efforts. I was wrong.

This is exactly what many of the leftist/unreasonably-pacifist set will often claim, particularly against individuals like our CR's. But the leftists do not say so because they've been in my boots, but only because they perceive this attack as being an all-undercutting criticism of individuals and their support of our nation’s various wars, individuals who have not carried arms in defense of our nation. It is a cowardly ad hominem the leftists know to have some force because of the weight typically given to it by veterans.

That is exactly why I have consciously stopped endorsing that line of reasoning: it only has a hint of legitimacy so long as we warriors also endorse it, which is unfortunate as its most frequent users are those who would do us harm. Veterans – do not endorse this thinking; those who use it are at best not our friends, they are otherwise our enemies, and the notion itself is false!

When one considers everything that goes into winning a war, it is plainly obvious that there is more to it than beans and bullets. No army of any democratic nation will ever win any war in the absence of supporting ideals and individuals; the idea of doing such a thing is meaningless to us. We do not make war for the sake of war.

Overwhelming force is obviously necessary to win strictly as a matter of physics, but human beings are more than simple mechanisms of action and reaction. We require something to believe in to propel us forward; we require ideas. As such, it is our ideas that are truly powerful, for without them we might lack inspiration to do anything at all with our troops and weapons, much less anything else. We know this to be true because the human race has seen it again and again throughout history - if there is not heart in the fight, the fight will be lost.

Therefore the support of those who are not directly involved in this fight is not only welcome, it is necessary for victory! Conversely, those who oppose this war and who actively work against it, their works will contribute to defeat (particularly by emboldening an enemy who might otherwise be demoralized and defeated); defeat is the only other outcome possible if the outcome is not victory. Human beings, being possessed of free will, can choose what it is that they will individually endorse, so it is then worthwhile to examine what it is that individuals do endorse and why to see which endorsement is moral.

In this fight, we are faced with an avowed enemy who is out to destroy our way of life. They are openly hostile to the core values that our nation is founded upon, and they make no bones about not distinguishing between civilians and soldiers as they kill to achieve their objectives. We have been shown numerous times their willingness to kill innocent people, with the September 11th attacks being the most spectacular, and in other attacks they have carried out against our allies, such as the triple hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan on November 9th, 2005, which saw one of those bombs being detonated in the midst of a wedding reception. In the UK and in Spain, they have deliberately killed hundreds of civilians in separate train bombings. Kenya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, the Netherlands, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon… the list goes on.

To support the war on terror, and thus to support our troops, is to oppose these things, to be against the murderers who have set themselves against us. It is to place your personal endorsement on our core values of freedom and justice, to align yourself with the belief that the proper destiny of each person is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It acknowledges that our enemies will not confine themselves to mere words, but do actively seek to kill us, and that they must therefore be destroyed. This is why we fight.

To oppose the war is to endorse the evil committed by our enemies, if not overtly, then at least by a cowardly, passive permissibility, as what they do is without any excuse and can rightly only be condemned and eliminated. The evil acts committed by our enemies do not permit us the space to not act, since their evil is of such a type and degree that it is morally abominable to not fight and defeat them. They must be answered, and they must be made to answer to justice. If you will not do so, or at least agree that this is so, then you might as well be one of them. Weakly throwing in "I support the troops!" as a disclaimer does not redeem you.

With that, I’d like to close with a few words penned by John Stewart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse…A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Thank you for what you’re doing, CR’s. What you’ve done and what I’m sure you’ll all continue to do really does mean a lot to our veterans, both those currently in the field and those of us who have been.

To the protesters… you’re welcome.

How to Motivate the Defeatocrats

You just have to give them a worthy enemy. From Eric Allie, PoliticalCartoons.com.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Democratic Patriotism

Hat tip, Powerline.