Dems consider votes against reinforcement

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Some Democrats are looking at President Bush's likely plan to increase troop levels in Iraq as a good place to start being the opposition.

Mrs. Clinton said that she was disinclined to support an increase in troops to Iraq, even short-term. "I'm not going to believe this President again," she said.

Since they own the checkbook they could effectively stop such a move from happening. This would do wonders to fire up the nutroots left, but I don't think it would play well with much of the rest of America. If W puts forth a call for one more push to victory, I believe even many war weary types will understand that we owe the Iraqis a full effort, but more importantly we owe our military a full effort. Any loss goes on their record and those who died and those still fighting deserve a shot at a win.

A retreat from defeat in Iraq would be a crushing blow to our prestige as a fighting force worldwide and we can't afford that. Part of the utility of a powerful expeditionary military is it's deterrent effect on bad actors. The knowledge that if you start screwing around too much Uncle Sugar will send you some Marines certainly stops some percentage of aggression. The idea that we were defeated by an Arab Muslim terror army would be a huge factor in our dealings with all the folks we are currently having trouble with. Al Qaeda triumphant, recruiting at will all over the ebbing Western world, the Mullahs adding another client to the roster, Syria vindicated and elevated, Iraq as a living hell. I don't see much of an upside.

Americans hate losing, we really do. If the choice is presented as reinforcing a full faith effort to secure Baghdad and put a boot on the necks in Al Anbar or some flavor of withdrawal, I believe a goodly majority would support the shot at victory. If the Democrats decide to draw a line in the sand and refuse to allow us the opportunity to win it may blow up in their faces. Hillary has already begun trying to triangulate her initial support for the war, with her base's hatred of it. A vote to deny reinforcements would be a huge bat to pummel her with come '08, but she can't possibly vote yes with the nutroots outside with torches and pitchforks.

One of the few pieces of faith I have left in W is his will. He is not going to make a decision because political winds are blowing a certain way. He understands the strategic implications of a loss, and I expect we will see a proposal for victory in early January. I really wish that Congress would consider any votes regarding this based on our national security, but fat chance of that. Some will, but far too many will put a finger in the wind and vote the politics. We must make sure that any who vote for defeat pay the price.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Dems consider votes against reinforcement

Some Democrats are looking at President Bush's likely plan to increase troop levels in Iraq as a good place to start being the opposition.

Mrs. Clinton said that she was disinclined to support an increase in troops to Iraq, even short-term. "I'm not going to believe this President again," she said.

Since they own the checkbook they could effectively stop such a move from happening. This would do wonders to fire up the nutroots left, but I don't think it would play well with much of the rest of America. If W puts forth a call for one more push to victory, I believe even many war weary types will understand that we owe the Iraqis a full effort, but more importantly we owe our military a full effort. Any loss goes on their record and those who died and those still fighting deserve a shot at a win.

A retreat from defeat in Iraq would be a crushing blow to our prestige as a fighting force worldwide and we can't afford that. Part of the utility of a powerful expeditionary military is it's deterrent effect on bad actors. The knowledge that if you start screwing around too much Uncle Sugar will send you some Marines certainly stops some percentage of aggression. The idea that we were defeated by an Arab Muslim terror army would be a huge factor in our dealings with all the folks we are currently having trouble with. Al Qaeda triumphant, recruiting at will all over the ebbing Western world, the Mullahs adding another client to the roster, Syria vindicated and elevated, Iraq as a living hell. I don't see much of an upside.

Americans hate losing, we really do. If the choice is presented as reinforcing a full faith effort to secure Baghdad and put a boot on the necks in Al Anbar or some flavor of withdrawal, I believe a goodly majority would support the shot at victory. If the Democrats decide to draw a line in the sand and refuse to allow us the opportunity to win it may blow up in their faces. Hillary has already begun trying to triangulate her initial support for the war, with her base's hatred of it. A vote to deny reinforcements would be a huge bat to pummel her with come '08, but she can't possibly vote yes with the nutroots outside with torches and pitchforks.

One of the few pieces of faith I have left in W is his will. He is not going to make a decision because political winds are blowing a certain way. He understands the strategic implications of a loss, and I expect we will see a proposal for victory in early January. I really wish that Congress would consider any votes regarding this based on our national security, but fat chance of that. Some will, but far too many will put a finger in the wind and vote the politics. We must make sure that any who vote for defeat pay the price.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00d8342f467a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dems consider votes against reinforcement:

» Politicizing Our Lives And Our Mission from Headspace and Timing
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive comments on the attempt by the left wing presidential aspirational wing of the dhimmicratic party to turn the request for more troops into a political battle that could result in national humiliation. Read it here. [Read More]