Antiwar Dems Defeated Again
Had Congress and a large portion of the American public consistently, and without wavering, supported the mission in Iraq from the beginning and withheld criticism until after victory, the ‘enemy’ would not have been encouraged to continue. Say all you want about why the US military is there but the fact remains they are. And there is a better than even chance if the necessary support from home had been there, that same US military would be home by now, with victory.
So the point is that those who have adopted the left antiwar theme contributed in whole and in part to the difficulties faced in Iraq. Senator Warner’s change of vote may be proof of that. Not running for re-election may have given him the opportunity to vote his conscience rather than political strategy.
Some have said this proposal was an end around the Democratic party’s failure to convince enough GOP members to support surrender again. It sounds wonderful to give troops a break from combat but not when it really is intended to speed depletion of available troops and thwart victory once again.
That the antiwar crowd continues their destructive message and attempts to convince others their actions support the troops is beyond comprehension. Unless you understand the antiwar theme is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can convince enough unsuspecting citizens that you have peaceful or humanitarian intentions the scam will work. Make enough noise not supporting a war effort and you effectively support the other side, also known as the enemy. Give the enemy enough incentive to continue a war and you have the self fulfilling prophecy. If you say the war cannot be won, that we are losing and you support surrender the ability to win is at least hindered or delayed.
That is why the war in Iraq and any future war must be conducted like Desert Storm in 1991. Get it done before the fringe left antiwar crowd has the opportunity to object. While there are virtually no comparisons to be made between the 1991 war and the current conflict(s) with the exception of military forces being involved, with trends in terrorism the rules of the game have changed. Therefore defending this country has just become much more difficult as the antiwar left will always have more time to launch opposition to that defense now that the instant war is less likely.
The ‘war on terror’ whether referring to current armed conflict or future events has complicated national defense options. In past ‘conventional’ war scenarios armed conflict took place between two or more countries. Terrorism has blurred the geopolitical nature of war. Rather than accept the terrorist notion of armed conflict and allow complicit nations to escape responsibility for their involvement, a new method for evaluating national defense options should be adopted.
Every terrorist was born within a geopolitical boundary. And every terrorist is a resident of some nation. The national defense options should be based upon which nations produced the terrorists responsible for any act of terror perpetrated against another country. The nation attacked by terrorists has the right to retaliate against the nation(s) who produced those same terrorists. Perhaps then nations who sponsor terrorism will understand their is a price for them to pay for such behavior.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com