Advance to Rear
Having lost militarily, the Democrats fall back to more familiar ground. Political failure:
Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq’s diverse political factions.
Better to stick with what you know. And good luck with that.
… now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom’s Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush’s policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war’s progress. The first installment of Petraeus’s testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.
But back to the Dem fingerpointing at Iraq’s struggling nascent democracy woes. If political failure is reason for abandonment, what are the Dems still doing on Capitol Hill? Withdraw!
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:18 am on Wednesday, August 22, 2007
22 Responses to “Advance to Rear”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
If political failure is reason for abandonment, what are the Dems still doing on Capitol Hill? Withdraw!
Exactly right. Of course there is the resultant bloodbath in the party ranks to follow, but we’re not concerned about that. They’ll work it out among themselves, heh.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Those darn Dimmicrats! Oh, wait…
“Meanwhile, the ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, assessed the state of the polity in Baghdad - whose transformation was the entire point of the surge - as ‘extremely disappointing.’”
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
No one disagrees that the Iraqi government has problems, corndog. The point is that the Dhimmicrats are ignoring reality, brushing off potential vistory, shifting goalposts, and being quite hypocritical in the process.
Pre-surge, the cry of the Surrenderistas was “It’s a quagmire! Our military can’t win! Withdraw!!!”
Currently*, the surge is working. We are seeing success. Are the Dhimmicrats seeing that as a good thing? No, they aren’t. Now, their cry is “It’s a quagmire! The Iraqi parliment is failing! Withdraw!!!”
(Me, I think every Iraq-related slogan of recent origin from the Dhimmicrats has the format “It’s a quagmire! [insert suitable soundbyte here]! Withdraw!!!” )
The Dhimmicrats had to be hammered in waiting for the surge to have an effect; their eagerness to sieze full power, impatience, short sightedness, and nutroot allies pretty much led them to demand a surrender** when we didn’t need to surrender. Now, they are doing very much the same thing, all over again, only focusing on the Iraqi politicians this time around.
What was that definition of insanity? Oh, yeah! “Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting something different to happen.” That was it!
==================================
*: Please note the caveat. I’m aware that reversals on the battlefield are possible. Especially if the Dhimmicrats continue with their current “strategies”.
**: Yes, I know, the Dhimmicrats never used the word “surrender”. But a “withdrawal over the horizon” is rather like saying “Advance to the rear!” Which amounts to surrender.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
The isolationist, head in the sand strain in American politics has always been around. It used to exist largely on the Right. Pearl Harbor knocked it right out of ‘em. Now it exists largely on the Left, and a few Buchananites. After about a week of hope and unity (yeah, yeah, that Bush squandered, I know) after 9/11, the same could not be said of the isolationist Left. Problem is for isolationist advocates of either stripe, they’ve never won any national elections with it (cf, Buchanan, P. and McGovern, G.). I suspect that won’t change substantially in 2008, because no matter what they tell their base, its clear the Dems are only anti-war when it is a war they aren’t running.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
What is even more important, Jeff, is that the enemy hears “surrender” when they listen to the Dem Cong rhetoric–then they use their words in their own propaganda.
The Dems love to allude to Viet Nam, all the while ignoring the fact that the North Vietnamese explicitly used them to win their war–a war they admit was lost on the ground–as well as ignoring what we now know from Soviet files: that their grand protest was scripted from Moscow. I suppose it is difficult to admit that they were ignorant children, and easily manipulated pawns in a situation they did not understand. Millions died or went into slavery because of it. Because they evade the knowledge now, they are, once again, putting millions of people in jeopardy.
They expect a different outcome, I suppose (as Jeff points out), and count on the war simply going away with American withdrawal. Along with all the obvious facts this evades, they refuse to acknowledge that the enemy sees the war in the Middle East as a battle in a much bigger war, even though the enemy says this repeatedly, and that we will leave ourselves in a greatly diminished position to fight.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
corndog:
What was it like before? I mean if things were so wonderful why the no fly zones, the sanctions, the inspectors, the human rights issues. etc?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Terrye,
What was it like before? There were no fly zones, sanctions, inspectors finding no wmd - and no US troops getting killed, Iraq not an ally of Iran, al Qaeda hunted by Hussein, human rights abuses that were equal to or less than what the Iraqi people face now, $2 trillion off from our budget, ample troops to make Afghanistan right, far more respect from the rest of the world and especially the Moslem world for the way that we invaded Afghanistan, wiped out al Qaeda and maybe bin Laden and then fixed the country up, no abu Ghraib… do you want me to go on?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
corndog who are committing the human rights abuses? You’re saying that the abuses of saddam are the same or less than now. Who are the abusers?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
MikeH,
I said the human rights abuses committed by Saddam are about equal and possibly less than what the Iraqis face today. The abusers today are the factions, mostly militias who kill, kidnap, drill holes in heads and faces, in order to drive the other faction out. Are you paying attention at all?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Jeffy says: “Currently*, the surge is working.”
Jeffy, you can’t possibly say that. At most the surge has been able to somewhat lessen the level of violence, but the violence has not lessened to the extent of a stable society. The military can’t possibly accomplish that, and no “victory” is remotely possible through the force of arms. Only the political and diplomatic side of the equation can do that, and the surge was intended to give the factions room to scramble it all back together.
And that is not happening, at all, as you recognize. The Sunnis have left, the parliament is on vacation, Maliki loves Iran, the U.S. is arming the Sunnis for war against the Shiites. It’s not the military’s fault, but it isn’t working.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“al Qaeda hunted by Hussein”
Please. Prove that.
“the parliament is on vacation”
As opposed to the US Congress?
“Jeffy”
Now THAT is the sign of a serious debate participant…
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 am
It’s Schtick, not stick, Jules.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Major John asks “Please. Prove that.”
See 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, Finding 5: “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Web Reconnaissance for 08/23/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Now THAT is the sign of a serious debate participant…
Using “corndog” and “serious debate participant” in the same sentence is an oxymoron of epic proportions, Major John. This was apparent well before corndog started using that diminutive.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Heh, heh, heh, heh. Jeffy said “moron.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
Jeffy, you can’t possibly say that. At most the surge has been able to somewhat lessen the level of violence, but the violence has not lessened to the extent of a stable society. The military can’t possibly accomplish that, and no “victory” is remotely possible through the force of arms. Only the political and diplomatic side of the equation can do that, and the surge was intended to give the factions room to scramble it all back together.
Of course I can say that, corndog, and I stand by it. I never said the politics were working, I was referring to the military operations. And, if you ever bothered reading what I wrote, I carefully noted that the surge could still fail from the political side (and in no small part, either). Consider yourself whacked with a titanium cluebat.
A major point of the surge is show the Iraqis that stopping the violence is possible…by killing and/or capturing the terrorists (with emphasis on killing them, IMHO). Al Quaeda knows this, and have redoubled their efforts to butcher even more people. And you’re falling for their tactics. Congratulations, you are now officially a tool.
What you fail to understand (along with most of Congress and the anti-war nuts) is that the utlimate duties of the soldier (or Marine, airman, or sailor) is to buy time. With blood and death, but that’s what it takes, more often than not. Not that you’ll accept this, but it remains true, nonetheless. Just ask Al Quaeda (and, no, they aren’t soldiers, but they understand the concept very well, and can apply it to their own objectives).
How do soldiers buy time? They either win a war decisively to impose a solution on the enemy, or they wear down the enemy until a diplomatic or political solution can be arranged. No soldier that I know has ever said otherwise.
So there is a problem with the political side. It’s due in part to the fractious nature of the Middle East, where family, tribes, and religion [in that order] trump nationalism (due in no small part to the legacy of your late buddy, Saddam Hussein). It’s also due in part to the idiotic behavior of our very own US Congress.
Maliki (if recent news reports are correct) is making progress on the political side. That’s a big “if”, though, so I am not holding my breath there.
But he couldn’t even begin to try if the current military operation (aka “The Surge”) wasn’t showing success. Which it is. Something that even the Dhimmicrats are acknowledging. Ungraciously, and so opprotunistically that it is nauseating to watch. But they are acknowledging it.
So I can say it. And I do.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
Heh, heh, heh, heh. Jeffy said “moron.”
Yep. And in a sentence about you. You might consider that.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Jeffy says: “Of course I can say that, corndog, and I stand by it. I never said the politics were working, was referring to the military operations”.
And if you ever bothered to read what I wrote, you’d see that what I was saying was that you cannot separate the military operations from the politics. No matter what the military does, the surge cannot work without the politics. So it is pointless to say the surge is working when you acknowledge that the politics has failed.
[Please don't respond to this post, though, Jeffy. You'll likely repeat what you said above, and I'll likely come back and repeat what I just said (as I just did), so it's better just to stop it here.]
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“…you’d see that what I was saying was that you cannot separate the military operations from the politics. “
We are saying the same thing, just in different directions, corndog. It’s just that you (incorrectly) conflate “military” and “politics”, whereas I separate them, with the politicians on top.
An observation that, frankly, scares the crap out of me. If you are of the mind that the military and politics are the same thing in different forms, there is no way on God’s green earth that I *ever* want to see that attitude in an American politician. Whenever soldiers get involved with politics as a unified force, disaster generally results.
Ponder that, corndog.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Shorter Jeffy:
“This car works great if you just look at those power windows go.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“This car works great if you just look at those power windows go.”
I dislike power windows, they’re just another thing to go wrong in a vehicle.