The left and Iraq

David Limbaugh:

...

That is, even if we conclude we were wrong to have attacked Iraq -- which we certainly were not -- our decision is done and can't be retracted, even by withdrawing. Our decision to remain or withdraw must be based on what is going on today and the likely consequences of remaining or withdrawing.

The problem is that the antiwar Left has conflated these issues. They have been so obsessed with establishing (through monomaniacal repetition) their fraudulent case that President Bush lied to get us into this war, they have literally paralyzed themselves from contributing anything constructive to any issues concerning the ongoing war effort.

...

Yes, let's meet head on the Left's charge that our mission in Iraq is neither part of, nor advancing our war on terror -- which it emphatically is. But let's do so in the context of how we should prosecute the war now that we're there, instead of dwelling on the moot issue of whether we should have attacked in the first place.

But, truth be told, the Left doesn't want to focus on the here and now, because by doing so they would have to forfeit the delicious political mileage they continue to accumulate against the president by confusing the issues.

Besides, with the exception of a few of their extremists, they (including all of their legitimate presidential hopefuls) know we can't legitimately talk about withdrawing, which is why they are not offering -- not even pretending to offer -- any alternative plans.

Let's debate all the Left's spurious allegations, but, for the sake of our mission and our troops, let's try to keep the issues separate and discrete at least for the purpose of making prudent decisions from this point forward.


Read it all. David does a good job of making the case the antiwar crowd does not want to hear. I think that the Cindy crowd is part of a group of left wing Democrats who oppose the use of force for any reason. They only believe in responding to terrorist with law suits. They are desperate for our defeat in Iraq, because they do not want to have to concede that the use of force is ok in any circumstances. Their harping over the reasons for going into Iraq are wholly disengenious. They would still have opposed our mission in Iraq, if we had found everyone of Saddam's unaccounted for WMD's. Their prewar opposition was never based on the premise that Saddam had no WMD. They just wanted to allow him to continue to game the system with inspectors and a corrupt UN. They are anti any war anytime.

I also think polls that show support for the war slipping can be very misleading. There are many people who want to win, who will be frustrated by the impression conveyed by the media that we are not. At the time of the Tet offensive, when polls started turning aginst the war in Vietnam, a significant component of that negative poll was made up of people who wanted to adopt a winning strategy rather than the Johnson McNamara strategy of fighting to a draw. US commanders need to do a better job of explaining their strategy for victory in Iraq and they need to do a much better job of explaining how weak the enemy in Iraq is. We are basically dealing with a minority of the 20 percent minority of Sunnis. The enemy is fighting among themselves as has been clearly demonstrated in ongoing action along the Syrian border around Husaybah in the last week, including a report today. The enemy is too weak to wear a uniform and too weak to take and hold real estate or take real estate. He cannot mass his forces without risking their immediate destruction. In the last week we have also put a serious crimp in his human bomb supply chain in Saudia Arabia. The only way he can win is if we let the antiwar pukes have their way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Russia attacking Iranian forces in Syria

Shortly after Nancy Pelosi visited Laredo, Texas and shook hands with mayor of Nuevo Laredo this happened