A Political Deadline For Defeat.

Joe Lieberman has given an outstanding speech on the Iraq War funding bills now passing through the Senate. The video is about 3 3/4 minutes long and you can view it at Classical Values or at The Astute Bloggers. I highly reccommend it if you can spare the bandwidth. Joe asks why Oct. 1, 2007 was picked as the cut off date.

Well, naturally I have a few ideas about that. I'm sure Joe knows the significance of that date. It is a little more than a month from our 2008 election. The Democrats want badly to get elected and they think that what with their rabid anti-war base and a general population that gets the war on Islamic Fascism and the importance of Iraq as a theater of that war, they have to get the war off people's minds before the election. So they have to calculate how late they can force the withdrawal and yet not have a full scale civil war in Iraq on election day.

Now we know that the Islamics really like the Democrats. They say so. The withdrawal gets a lot of praise. So I would expect as a quid pro quo from the Islamics that they will hold off on attacks for the most part especially from the withdrawal date until after the election once a date certain for withdrawal has been set.

In other words I think the Democrats with all their recent toing and frowing in the Middle East have brokered a sell out of America and Iraq. They went direct to upper management. No fooling around with intermediaries or cut outs who might screw the deal or want too big a cut. Nope. Right to the top. When it comes to the Culture of Corruption I think the Republicans with their Jack Abramoff type scandals were pikers. They were only selling out one segment of the American people to another. These folks are selling out America to foreign powers. And not retail like Dubai Ports or similar examples. These folks are offering a package deal at wholesale rates. The scope is breathtaking. The chutzpah stupendous.

Cross Posted at Power and Control and at The Astute Bloggers

posted by Simon on 04.27.07 at 10:29 PM










Comments

That's a tough pill to swallow, but I don't see how else it can be read. Why else go to Syria? There may be some other explanation, like the Speaker-in-Law needing a new scarf, but making sure that Iraq would have a month of peaceful bliss after the Dems' force a withdrawal? It fits too well.

Socrates   ·  April 28, 2007 1:36 AM

Defeats are like ceasarian sections. To a great extent, if you have the skill, you can schedule them.

Victory in small wars is less certain. They peter out rather than end with surrender.

M. Simon   ·  April 28, 2007 3:01 AM

I try to remain nonpartisan, because I will serve under whichever party gains advantage through elections. Unfortunately, this group appears to be so ruthlessly opportunistic and so shortsighted that all they want is to win the election and 2008, and to hell with the aftermath.

SFC SKI   ·  April 28, 2007 6:50 AM

It would seem that the fastest way for the
Iraq to get US troops out would be to stop
the attacks.
The only purposr of this senseless violence
must be to keep US forces in Iraq.
Hugh

Hugh   ·  April 28, 2007 11:46 AM

The terrorists and insurgents and plain old thugs stopped the hard targeting of MNF folks some time ago, preferring opportunistic attacks via IEDs of various sorts, and the odd RPG and mortar round. They stopped because in a stand up fight, terrorists lose, overwhelmingly to any decently trained armed forces. Ask Hezbollah and their 'instacrypts' they made for themselves in Lebanon.

They went after the Iraqi Army, next, but that also dwindled as that new Army gained confidence. Then the police and they, too proved too tough.

Who do they attack now? Women, children and unarmed men. This idea that if we 'just stop attacking them they will stop attacking us' misses the point that they are NOT attacking us, by and large, and ARE attacking the weak and defenseless. If you can stand up and fight effectively, the terrorists, insurgents and thugs look elsewhere.

Whatever happened to helping people who had been under the boot of tyranny for decades to stand up on their own so that they can protect themselves? Not worth it? The few thousand that the US has gotten in casualties pales in comparison to what the Iraqi people have suffered because we cannot be everywhere and foreigners are coming in to kill them. Plus they have the ex-Ba'athists still hanging around here and there, trying to regain any grip on power that they can.

When does America stand *up* for helping a People to actually rebuild their society... not their Nation, but standard, everyday society? Why should they be ready to trust *any* government as every thing they have seen from government during most of their lives has been terror, kidnapping and torture at the whim of a despot? All the way down to towns and villages.

When does America stand for doing that?

Because that is the seedbed of liberty and freedom.

Notice how free South Vietnam is now? How free? How well off by running out on them?

Luckily only two other Nations fell that were neighbors that depended on the US standing up with an Ally to fight. By running Cambodia and Laos also went down...

In case folks have missed it, al Qaeda and Hezbollah are *global* in scope and have been pushing hard in Iraq for America to leave so that they can step in and utilize the oil revenues there to spread even more terror on a global basis.

For all those that decry the death of Volunteer Soldiers, remember that we have folks voluntarily not cleaning their cuts and scrapes and dying at a rate ten times faster than the entire conflict to this point. Per year. Perhaps you Nannystaters could address that first and save some actual lives that are put at peril due to voluntary negligence.

Strange that the cost in treasure and money is ever brought up by anyone, as the growth rate of the economy does, indeed, cover the cost of this war. Actually, the economy still *grows* so the ongoing cost, per year, was covered in the first year so that the stable economy can support this for quite some time.

As wars go we are past timelines like WWI and WWII and such. But the fighting of the Philippine insurgency after the war there, well... lets just say we are faint of heart compared to that generation which saw eight or more years of the most horrific combat ever experienced by US Armed Forces. The Barbary Wars lasted longer... I guess that Jefferson could stand up against Islam. And we can't. And the threat to *him* was 10% or more of the economy per year, every year which would have bankrupted the Nation. The Revolutionary War went on longer and the Articles ensured another five years of unrest and insurrection...

We are not prepared for the fact that the 21st century, while numerically higher than the 20th, is actually having to fight against foes more common to the 19th... the 17th... the 7th centuries. Too effete to survive in those times, is this Nation known as America. Or at least the majority of Americans are.

"Give me Liberty or give me... don't hit, I surrender!" Not a real good resounding cry for the Nation, that.

"No Taxation without... ahh, its taking too long, here's my money." No that doesn't sound too good, either.

"We are the friend of Liberty everywhere... unless it actually costs something, then forget about it." Somehow that doesn't have quite the force one would like, does it? There is a stark difference between safeguarding our own democracy, and encouraging barbarians to tear the world down around us.

This fight has already come to Our Shores. Running across Hezbollah organizers and supporters of Hamas here in the US, and letting them actively *recruit* is not a good idea, really. Nor is turning a blind eye to the presence of those and other terrorist groups recruiting in Middle Eastern ex-pat communities in South America. Nor is this grand idea of giving those that wage illegitimate war to cause terror a 'fair trial': they target civilians and society to remove the ability to have a Nation.

And when we can draw them into a battlefield of Our Choosing and they see it as necessary to drive us out from it, then best we remember that we opened that front to make them concentrate on us. To take us seriously that we would remove the capabilities of these groups to get even more horrific weapons than they could already get. Unless, of course, we actually want that sort of horror here. And more.

We can stand with a people oppressed for decades and help them learn what it takes to build society and defend themselves. It might take awhile, considering how long they were abused, tortured and killed. It is hard to get over seeing a father, mother, husband, wife, son or daughter fed feet first into a plastics shredder. On videotapes that have been distributed across the neighborhood. Kind of hard to forget that sort of thing or forgive those that did it. Or trust *any* government. Why should we expect the Iraqi people to recover instantly from that? To, actually, outperform America in ability to coalesce into a Nation? Why do we expect Iraqis to be so much better than WE ARE?

How long would it take you to recover from seeing one or two or three... or more... people you cared about tortured to death? And then that presented to entire neighborhoods or on television for fun and frivolity to remind you what happens when you speak up against a tyrant. A lot of the killing that has gone on has been in *revenge*. Can't say that I blame those doing such. They have never been treated like people by anyone outside the family or tribe... and reminded the cost of trying to espouse freedom.

Apparently America cannot understand these things.

Soon we will not be worth knowing as we will stand for *nothing*. And nothing will be our reward.

ajacksonian   ·  April 28, 2007 2:09 PM

Very good points made in the previous comment.

As the Iraqi police stops being composed of willing Iraqi recruits being drawn from one area of IRaq and sent to another where no one will volunteer to be a part of the police force, as was the case in the past with the Iraqi Army, and becomes a police force recruited from citizens of the towns and cities they will patrol, the insurgents will be much less able to attack the IP as well. This is happening in al-Anbar, and while IP are still targeted, locals are cooperating much more and Al-Qaeda has fewer safe areas to plan and assemble.
Baghdad is so much larger, but the plan is the same. Given time, it will succeed there as well, I just hope the military is given the time and support it needs to assist the Iraqis in bringging this about.

SFC SKI   ·  April 29, 2007 4:43 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits