Defeating the quagmirist
Since the Vietnam war Democrat foreign policy has been based on the premise that any military conflict was a potential quagmire. This premise was refined after a decesive victory by US forces in 91 against Iraq. Before the war, most of the Democrats who voted against aauthorizing the US of force did so out of fear of a new quagmire. Once victory was achieved, the Dems became eager to use force in certain circustances under Bull Clinton, but were wary of any use of force by Republican administrations. Thus in a matter of weeks intot he liberationof Afghanistan the NY Times and otehrs were fretting over a qquagmire. Similar concerns were raised in the first weeks of the liberation of Iraq.
Those concerns became full throated and were clutched to the bosom of Howard Dean once the Baathist remnants start of a rather weak guerrilla campaign after Iraq's army had been defeated. With the capture of Saddam and the rollup of his "resistance" thugs the quagmirist are suffering their ultimate defeat. If the US can prevail against asymetrical warfare raiding strategies the main premise of Democrat national security policy for the last 40 years will be shown as invalid.
Another principal of liberal Democrat foreign policy is also in trouble witht he capitualation of Lybia on WMD. Dems believe tht it is better to "contain" and negotiate with threats than to remove them. It is why they were constitutionally illequiped to end the cold war or to deal with Saddam. Howard Dean's solution for Iraq stated simply was contain and negotiate. It had been an ineffective strategy but the Dems liked it, even though Saddam was left in place to continue to murder his people. Those murders did not trouble the Dems that much because they were political not ethnic. They were similar to the mass murders of Stalin so they were permitted. They Dems are so deeply invested in this position that they cannot concede the obvious, that Lybia capitualated because of fear that they might share Saddam's fate. Their position is further evidence of why they should not be trusted on national security issues.
Since the Vietnam war Democrat foreign policy has been based on the premise that any military conflict was a potential quagmire. This premise was refined after a decesive victory by US forces in 91 against Iraq. Before the war, most of the Democrats who voted against aauthorizing the US of force did so out of fear of a new quagmire. Once victory was achieved, the Dems became eager to use force in certain circustances under Bull Clinton, but were wary of any use of force by Republican administrations. Thus in a matter of weeks intot he liberationof Afghanistan the NY Times and otehrs were fretting over a qquagmire. Similar concerns were raised in the first weeks of the liberation of Iraq.
Those concerns became full throated and were clutched to the bosom of Howard Dean once the Baathist remnants start of a rather weak guerrilla campaign after Iraq's army had been defeated. With the capture of Saddam and the rollup of his "resistance" thugs the quagmirist are suffering their ultimate defeat. If the US can prevail against asymetrical warfare raiding strategies the main premise of Democrat national security policy for the last 40 years will be shown as invalid.
Another principal of liberal Democrat foreign policy is also in trouble witht he capitualation of Lybia on WMD. Dems believe tht it is better to "contain" and negotiate with threats than to remove them. It is why they were constitutionally illequiped to end the cold war or to deal with Saddam. Howard Dean's solution for Iraq stated simply was contain and negotiate. It had been an ineffective strategy but the Dems liked it, even though Saddam was left in place to continue to murder his people. Those murders did not trouble the Dems that much because they were political not ethnic. They were similar to the mass murders of Stalin so they were permitted. They Dems are so deeply invested in this position that they cannot concede the obvious, that Lybia capitualated because of fear that they might share Saddam's fate. Their position is further evidence of why they should not be trusted on national security issues.
Comments
Post a Comment