Democrats' Dilemma

Published on June 20, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

Perhaps the most divisive issue among Democrats is Iraq and its withdrawal. This is understandable for two essential reasons. Out of deference to our troops there and most particularly those who died and the seriously wounded from the conflict. As Kerry said many years ago, “How do you ask the next man to die for a mistake?” No one wants to be in this position of confessing to a catastrophic foreign policy — the haunting echoes of Vietnam. The other agony is that what other catastrophe might eventuate when it is official that troop attrition begin?

First — and to counteract Rove’s charge of “ cut and run” — a possible answer is that if “mission accomplished” can be declared in early ‘03, surely ‘06 should be granted the same privilege. It is a disservice to the men and women of the armed forces to say that if they were to leave now they are cutting and running when in fact they have done their job three years ago and have been giving the unseemly task of mopping up what Iraqis themselves should have been doing all along. As for our alleged, abominable foreign policy, history shall be the true judge of that and in the meantime it becomes a political football for ensuing elections as to how to define and carry out a war on terrorism.

Secondly, no matter when we pull out of Iraq there is no way in Hades we can be comfortable in turning over the reins in a wild country that will take generations to settle into sensible and peaceful alignments. We might just as well accept that ugly fact now.

Comments

Island Dog

on Jun 20, 2006

As Kerry said many years ago, “How do you ask the next man to die for a mistake?”

Was that before or after he was meeting with our enemy in Paris?

stevendedalus

on Jun 20, 2006

With your predisposion it wouldn't matter.

Island Dog

on Jun 20, 2006

It's just funny how you quote Kerry, when Kerry doesn't have a clear position the war.

stevendedalus

on Jun 20, 2006

Kerry the Parisian and Hanoi Jane were young spirits then--they, too, have regrets as Bush for stating "bring it on."

ParaTed2k

on Jun 20, 2006

The difference is, on '03 the mission of toppling the Hussein regime had been accomplished. The mission of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln had been accomplished. The current mission of defending Iraq from the bacteria long enough for them to fully establish their government is not accomplished.

The U.S. Military Code of Conduct does not allow for surrender while we still have the means to continue the fight. Just as Congress hides behind stupidity and double talk, "authorizing force" when they are really Declaring War, to pull our troops out, mission unfinished and still able to fight is Surrendering.

Congress didn't "pull troops out" of Viet Name, Congress Surrendered.

The ONLY thing this war has anything to do with Vietnam is; in Vietnam, Congress betrayed the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines... Now there are people in Congress who are ready to betray the men and women in Iraq. When Murtha was betrayed, he must have loved it, since he has done nothing but betray troops ever since (Mogadishu? Beirut?)...

If Congress wants to surrender, that is their Constitutional right, but they'd better be man enough to stand and use the word, because that is what those who vote to pull our troops out, mission unaccomplished, are voting to do.

Thank goodness so few are actually willing to take that dreadful step.

Dr Guy

on Jun 20, 2006

One could also argue that we could never get out of Germany or Japan, but in essence we did, and it took a lot longer.

Is Iraq going to be eden after we are gone? No, but hopefully instead of leaving sheep to be slaughtered, we will leave fighters that can hold the wolf at bay.

bakerstreet

on Jun 20, 2006

"One could also argue that we could never get out of Germany or Japan, but in essence we did, and it took a lot longer."

The Germans and Japanese were clearly "informed" that they had lost the war. The Iraqi people never saw themselves to be the instigators of war at all, and the problem segments of their society see themselves as abused by an unlawful occupation.

We aren't fighting a war in Iraq, and never have been. Had we fought a real war there, I doubt seriously the people would have been anxious to stand by and watch foreigners ruin their chances for peace.

Good Point

on Jun 20, 2006

The main problem with the "declaring victory and leaving" strategy, which I do not necessarily oppose, is how do we go about that without looking like we lost in the eyes of Arabs, the Moslems, and the Jihadists--without making it look like they drove us out of Iraq? That's an important, a very important, thing to consider, and no decision we make as Americans should ignore that question. We're in a serious mess here without any sunny solutions.

terpfan1980

on Jun 20, 2006

The difference above all else is that the Democrats believe Iraq is, in the words of the Kerry quote you used: "a mistake."

It was far from a mistake, and yet that is all the Democrats will ever see it as. Perhaps partially because they want the rest of the world to see it that way too so that they may be entrusted with fixing that mistake. If the voters in the U.S. are smart, they'll never get that chance.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 20, 2006

Good point, Good Point... In fact, it is a historical fact, much of the Arab world considers Hussien the victor of Desert Storm, since he was left standing it was the U.S. Led Coalition who pulled out. To further solidify that in their minds, Hussein was still the leader of Iraq long after George Bush Sr. was deposed by his own people.

Good Point

on Jun 20, 2006

I think the Arab/Moslem sentiments of "victory" (via Hussein) in the first War are very shallow--present, but shallow. However, those from Somalia, and those from Lebanon in 1983 are deeply held. Taking a very legalistic approach with the 1993 WTC bombing and virtually all subsequent attacks, and a very half-assed Cruise Missile attack in Afghanistan (how Clintonian) made the Arabs and the Moslems think we were a bunch of wimps.

I am against our current fiasco in Iraq. However, there are certain realities that the liberal arguments don't incorparate, because liberals are just too clueless to understand it, and one is honor. The Sunnis fight because they have been dishonored. We fought and continue to fight largely because we don't want to see our honor besmirched.

Dr Guy

on Jun 20, 2006

and the problem segments of their society see themselves as abused by an unlawful occupation.

But the problem segments are small, and most of the trouble makers are foreign imports. First a jordanian and now an Egyptian. That hardly smacks of either a cohesive opposition, or a natural born one.

MythicalMino

on Jun 20, 2006

Kerry is a delimma unto himself.

I would like to see any politician, even more so a democrat, that really cares about anything other than more political power....Kerry sure as hell doesn't. Never did, never will. That is why he is not able to make his mind up on what he wants to stand for.

Good Point

on Jun 20, 2006

Who do you mean by "troublemakers?" Most of the suicide bombers detonating explosives in a Baghdad marketplace, for example, are indeed foreigners, often from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Almost all of the tens of thousands of insurgents in Iraq are native-born-and-raised Iraqis. These are the ones planting roadside bombs that blow up our troops and shelling American bases with rockets and mortars. A healthy percentage of, at least the ringleaders, are Iraqi nationalists who were formerly officers in the Iraqi Army, before Bremer disbanded them. Some are former Fedayeen Saddam. Some are Sunni Salafists. A few are former Baathists who seek the return of Saddam, or a similar structure. Some are Baathists who do not seek Saddam's return, but something different.

I highly recommend :Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq for more info.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, formerly Jamat al Tawhid wal Jihad (Zarqawi's group) is not synonymous with Insurgency. They are only a part, and a very small (but high profile) part of it at that.

stevendedalus

on Jun 23, 2006

The key here is as Baker sees it, not a real war. Had it been an insurgency could never have materialized because of our overwhelming might. Pulling out of a half baked war is not surrender but realistic in light of our incompetence or not really being serious about the "war" in the first place. I'm disheartened that so many on JU can continue to support these neo-assholes while our kids are dying everyday.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!