Thursday, November 09, 2006
The big winner, Terrorists. The big loser, Iraqi democracy.
Two events this week signaled a freer hand for Islamic terrorism and reduced support for Iraqi democracy; the election of the Democrats to majority status in both houses of Congress and the selection by President Bush of Robert Gates to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.
For their parts, the Democrats have never been serious when it comes to the war on terror. Winning it never seems to cross their minds. As I mentioned in a previous post, the word ‘victory’ just doesn’t seem to be in their lexicon. They can’t even admit that there is a war on. Being hated by others must mean that WE’VE done something wrong. It doesn’t matter if some part of the world has declared war on the U.S., they’ll have none of it.
For his part, Mr. Gates is of the Beltway Crowd that sees all conflict as ‘failures to communicate.’ It’s possible that he might change his stripes this go-around, but he’s coming fresh out of the Baker commission that’s going to tell us how to ‘solve the Iraq problem.’ The folks on that panel have little or no practical wartime victory experience but love the ‘talk’ game. If rumor is to be trusted, their recommendations will include, if not center on, negotiating with Iran and Syria to assist us in Iraq. It takes a certain amount of foolish intellectualism to even seriously consider such a proposal.
As such, I was not surprised to read the following in an AP story today:
If all the signs are accurate, history will repeat itself. As in the early ‘90s, once again brave Iraqis who believed the United States when it said they would stand by them will be disappointed and thrown to the tender mercies of the crazed sadists who will be left to roam free. Iraqi's who placed their bets on a better life will be slaughtered, along with any reason to trust or respect American "resolve." And rightly so.
For their parts, the Democrats have never been serious when it comes to the war on terror. Winning it never seems to cross their minds. As I mentioned in a previous post, the word ‘victory’ just doesn’t seem to be in their lexicon. They can’t even admit that there is a war on. Being hated by others must mean that WE’VE done something wrong. It doesn’t matter if some part of the world has declared war on the U.S., they’ll have none of it.
For his part, Mr. Gates is of the Beltway Crowd that sees all conflict as ‘failures to communicate.’ It’s possible that he might change his stripes this go-around, but he’s coming fresh out of the Baker commission that’s going to tell us how to ‘solve the Iraq problem.’ The folks on that panel have little or no practical wartime victory experience but love the ‘talk’ game. If rumor is to be trusted, their recommendations will include, if not center on, negotiating with Iran and Syria to assist us in Iraq. It takes a certain amount of foolish intellectualism to even seriously consider such a proposal.
As such, I was not surprised to read the following in an AP story today:
After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.Well, duh! Part of the unreported success due the American presence in Iraq is some ability to keep these two nuclear rods apart. It looks like that buffer will soon diminish.
If all the signs are accurate, history will repeat itself. As in the early ‘90s, once again brave Iraqis who believed the United States when it said they would stand by them will be disappointed and thrown to the tender mercies of the crazed sadists who will be left to roam free. Iraqi's who placed their bets on a better life will be slaughtered, along with any reason to trust or respect American "resolve." And rightly so.
# posted by Ricard : 7:13 PM
