Moving the goal post on Iraq
The Washington Post has 12 Army Captains who want to give up on Iraq because it is a corrupt place. No doubt it is corrupt. In the same paper the State Department says, "... corruption in Iraq is "real, endemic and pernicious," and remains a major challenge to building a functioning, stable democracy....
That is something Iraq is going to have to work on to become a prosperous society. But it has not stopped us from significantly lowering the level of violence in Iraq which used to be the media and the Democrats main metric for measuring victory. The destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq is primarily responsible for lowering the level of violence and Iraq would have no chance of curing its corruption without the defeat of al Qaeda. Defeating the enemy will give the Iraqis an opportunity to do something about the corruption. That job is beyond the scope of our engagement and responsibility.
The left will be disappointed that I did not call these Captains phony soldiers. They are still trying to push that phony controversy. They are still looking for excuses to lose, and are willing to seize on this one. The left's desperation for defeat will only grow shriller as we get closer to victory.
Bob Owens notes that only two of the 12 captains have served in Iraq "... as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before...." That certainly suggest their knowledge base is probably pretty stale.
Jules Crittenden also responds to the captains and quotes David Kilcullen as saying that "When you served in Iraq tends to color how you view Iraq." That seems to reinforce Bob Owens' point.
Murdoc is also critical of the captains' call for a draft. I agree. The Army has been infinitely improved by doing away with the draft. It has turned itself into an elite force. This has always been one of the strongest features of the Marine Corps which has rarely relied on the draft. It should also be noted that the military was significantly larger during the 1980's and into the 1990's with an all volunteer force. It is smaller now because the Clinton administration made some unwise cuts. We can rebuild the size of the military without a draft.
That is something Iraq is going to have to work on to become a prosperous society. But it has not stopped us from significantly lowering the level of violence in Iraq which used to be the media and the Democrats main metric for measuring victory. The destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq is primarily responsible for lowering the level of violence and Iraq would have no chance of curing its corruption without the defeat of al Qaeda. Defeating the enemy will give the Iraqis an opportunity to do something about the corruption. That job is beyond the scope of our engagement and responsibility.
The left will be disappointed that I did not call these Captains phony soldiers. They are still trying to push that phony controversy. They are still looking for excuses to lose, and are willing to seize on this one. The left's desperation for defeat will only grow shriller as we get closer to victory.
Bob Owens notes that only two of the 12 captains have served in Iraq "... as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before...." That certainly suggest their knowledge base is probably pretty stale.
Jules Crittenden also responds to the captains and quotes David Kilcullen as saying that "When you served in Iraq tends to color how you view Iraq." That seems to reinforce Bob Owens' point.
Murdoc is also critical of the captains' call for a draft. I agree. The Army has been infinitely improved by doing away with the draft. It has turned itself into an elite force. This has always been one of the strongest features of the Marine Corps which has rarely relied on the draft. It should also be noted that the military was significantly larger during the 1980's and into the 1990's with an all volunteer force. It is smaller now because the Clinton administration made some unwise cuts. We can rebuild the size of the military without a draft.
Comments
Post a Comment