In To Win
There is an op-ed in the Washington Post that will, I am quite sure, raise a lot of uproar in the blogosphere. Liz Cheney writes on why the US must win in Iraq. The fact that she is who she is will make some reject her arguments out of hand. But frankly, she is saying a lot of things I have said on this blog and that a lot of others have been trying to point out as well.
Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.
In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans — with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel — seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.
I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:
· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
There is quite a lot more. We are, as a nation, showing a horrible face to the world. One of internal rancor and disarray. Do not think this is not seen and understood by our enemies. It surely is. The cost to this country for losing the war in Iraq will be enormous. And the next war - and there will be one - will be much, much more ugly and costly.
Other Links to this Post
-
The Political Pit Bull — Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 3:08 pm
By Stitt, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 2:23 am
Citizens of America: Please do as they say and obey your leaders. We must show the world that we are not actually a Democracy where dissent is a responsibility. The world must believe we really had to destroy the villiage to save it. Otherwise, the costs of this war COULD be ENORMOUS.
By Brendan, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 5:48 am
A war of such global proportions, and such dire stakes, requires actions like Our Greatest Generation took: rationed gasoline and a 90% tax bracket for anyone making over $1 million. (We’re not as Great as the Greatest, so we certainly don’t need a draft). Then maybe we can get serious about this existential threat. Although if you want to fight existential threats, I thought that was what the Ghostbusters were for.
Really, is Lynn 13 years old? Is her favorite movie “Red Dawn?”
By J., Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 7:21 am
Brendan, I had the same thoughts. I’m all for a serious discussion on military strategy and foreign policy, but her cheap political rhetoric is so pre-election 2004. Who’s she trying to convince? The 70 percent of the American public who’s lost faith? The article clearly shows that she was hired into the State Dept based on patronage and not ability.
By Ted Goldman, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Abe Lincoln would understand the comments of the weak and vacillating crowd. Thank God for Lyn Cheney.
Ted G.
By Dan K., Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 1:45 pm
The reason I reject her arguments out-of-hand is they’re the same arguments that were made at the beginning of the invasion, before people knew of the scale of resistance on the part of Iraqis and the unforgivable bumbling of the people in charge. The article gives no mention of any of those things. It’s a lot of statements without any evidence behind them. That was forgivable in 2003, when there wasn’t any evidence. Now, there’s a lot one has to account for before one can say “quitting helps the terrorists” with a straight face.
By NellE, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Seems like if we want to win any future wars, we will have to demand that our enemies limit the level of resistance they’ll put up, our leaders must limit their mistakes to just a handful (preferably none), and we will all have to be taxed much more severely in order to impress upon us that it’s serious.
Or we’ll have another tantrum.