Retreat to victory?

Sherman Frederick:

Am I missing something, or is this just another example of political doublespeak?

The U.S. Senate passed a war-funding bill last week. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this will "change the course in Iraq" by giving our troops "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq." Why, just reading that you'd think that Sen. Reid is giving American soldiers a green light to kick some major butt in Baghdad.

You'd be wrong. What Harry is really saying is that "victory" means hightailing it out of Iraq.

Whoever taught Harry critical thinking skills back at Basic High School in the 1950s can't be happy. His creative writing teacher, however, must be ecstatic, because calling what the Senate did last week "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq" is about as far from reality as one can get.

What the Senate did under the umbrella of a troop funding bill was vote for removing most forces from Iraq in 365 days. Think about that -- one year.

No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity can seriously call the Senate's action a blueprint for military success in Iraq. Arizona Sen. John McCain may not be my favorite political cup of tea, but he called it right on this one: "This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act. A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."

Now look, unlike Senate Democrats, I want to be clear and plainly understood about this. Americans can have at least two very legitimate points of view on U.S. involvement in Iraq. There are those who think we can create a better Middle East via a stable and democratic Iraq by supplying more troops, money and good old American resolve. And there are those who hold there is no military solution in Iraq, we ought to come to grips with that, cut our losses and get the hell out.

I happen to be in the "we-can-still-win" camp. And you won't catch me calling the "get-the-hell-out" folks cowards or un-American. But I will say I have increasingly little patience for politicians who try to have it both ways.

In that regard, Harry Reid's deliberately evasive position on Iraq wears extremely thin. When the war began, Harry was gung-ho and voted so. Even now, in hindsight, he says he was right to vote for the war. Yet, now that things have gotten tough, Harry (if I comprehend his doublespeak correctly) wants out.

That's fine. He's entitled to that view. But why not just say so?

...

Democrats can't be honest and win elections. It is called the politics of fraud and they are the masters of it. If they were honest they could not even get the support of their base which wants a real surrender in Iraq right now. If they were honest they would lose the middle which wants commanders to decide when the troops should leave. If they were honest Harry Reid would not be the majority leader. Heck he probably would not have had so many profitable real estate deals either. Sherman writes for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. I wonder how Reid is polling at home lately.