Democrats and War

[Myrhaf]

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Thomas Sowell makes some good points on the Democrats and the war.

They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.

And,

It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue.

You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake.

And,

Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.

That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.

Why do the Democrats lack seriousness on the war? Is it because they are cynical and will manipulate any issue to gain power?

I think their lack of seriousness comes from their inability to understand that we are at war. Part of the reason we are in this mess is because many in Washington for decades refused to consider terrorism as a matter of war. Instead they thought of it as a criminal justice matter. John Kerry voiced that opinion in the last presidential election, three years after the World Trade Center attacks. A nation does not go to war against another nation in response to individual criminals.

Nancy Pelosi’s grin and the Democrats’ games show that they still do not really believe we are at war. They still believe that if we just sit down and talk with Iran and the rest of the totalitarian Islamists -- and if we buy them off with enough foreign aid -- then we can fly on by the seat of our pants as we have for decades. In the sophisticated enclaves of Manhattan and Aspen and Napa Valley, the idea of war must seem like an overreaction of the great unwashed masses -- all those jingoist fools who lose their reason in presence of the American flag.

Meanwhile, the enemy is still alive and planning the next attack.

View the full article

[Korthor]

On the other hand, I find Bush's goofy shit-kicker grin so comforting... it really makes me feel like we have a competent hand at the wheel...

The Democrats want early withdrawal from Iraq. If you want to debate the merits of that policy, please do so rather than tossing around ad homs.

[softwareNerd]

The essential question is not whether the Democrats want to withdraw and whether the Republicans want to continue; the essential question is why. There are good reasons to fight and good reasons to withdraw, and bad reasons to do both. The Democrats clearly nihilistic in this regard, playing Bush's failures for political advantage, without offering any solutions of their own.

[Korthor]

Different Democrats have different reasons, but most who favor withdrawal say they want to because

1) the war is failing and just costing American lives

2) the troops could be put to better use in Afghanistan, the real fron in the War on Terror

3) Iraq is wearing down US military preparedness

All politicians want to win; let's not pretend like the GOP is any better. If you want to discuss the policies or philosophies of particular people, then by all means lets discuss those policies/philsoophies instead of the facial expressions of Pelosi.

[Fireball]

Democrats have criminalized politics (e.g., the Scooter Libby verdict) and politicized war (e.g., the Iraq war). Below is a 50-year review of how leftists from Jean-Paul Sartre to Thomas Friedman (New York Times columnist) manipulated public opinion to lose wars for political gain. In today's context of the Iraq war, Democrats have worked to sink Bush's war efforts to regain control of government.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/...56&page=all

[Korthor]

The Republicans also criminilized politics, not to mention sex (impeachment of Clinton). I found the Commentary article and wasn't impressed. Yeah hard-core Marxists like JPS called America and the French Nazis... he was like the Michael Moore of his day with some philosophical and novelistic skills. I wouldn't put him in the same category as center-leftists like Friedman.

The surge is showing short-term results... and people who oppose American continuation in the war insist the results will stay short term. It's a debate. If you want to debate Iraq policy, then debate Iraq policy. The old "if you suggest we're not winning the war, you cause us to lose the war" schtick stopped being persuasive a long time ago. Even Fox News commentators have trouble still saying it with a straight face.

Please don't engage in ad hom attacks that presume to know the secret thoughts of millions of people... many of whom are combat veterans and war heroes themselves. How many of the planners of the Iraqi war are veterans? The neocons are just a bunch of ex-socialist intellectuals... why should I give them the benefit of the doubt over experienced military men who doubt the success of the current strategy?

[softwareNerd]

The Republicans clearly have no idea how to prosecute a war. The tiredness that the general population feel, and part of the anti-war reaction in voting the GOP out falls squarely in the GOP's lap. If the stereotypical Democrat wants zero war, the stereotypical GOP person wants limited war with a hand tied behind one's back. When compared with this type of war, the zero-war idea definitely has it's merits; but, not because zero-war makes sense. In other words, the nihilism of Pelosi and ilk only looks good when contrasted with the shadows that pass as values among people like Bush.

[Fireball]

Bush's war on terrorism has become enfeebled, but it would help if Democrats sided with Bush in executing this war rather than siding with the enemy. Today on Air America Radio, Democrat Rachel Maddow blamed America for Iran taking 15 British soldiers hostage. She alleged that because US troops seized Iranians that were killing US soldiers in Iraq, Iran simply was retaliating by seizing UK sailors. Such attitudes embolden Islamic fanatics.

[Korthor]

I don't think Rachel Maddow reflects mainstream Democratic opinion, nor do I think the Fundies are listening in to newscasts by left wing American feminists. What's really emboldening Iran is its perception that the US is weak in Iraq.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Korthor

[softwareNerd]

The US performance in Iraq is merely a recent manifestation. What emboldens Iran is their realistic understanding of the lack of moral courage that is widespread among the US population, and that stems from the ideas of multiculturalism that are accepted as mainstream in the US. The philosophers of the left are principally responsible for undermining this.

However, Bush's war is enfeebled primarily because Bush is morally enfeebled. He accepts many multiculturalist ideas;and that is his weakness. While it is true that the Democrats do not help with their nihilism, it is also true that Bush has nothing decent to offer instead. Even though many Americans have bought into the multiculturalist ideas (like the many middle-of-road people who cannot say with conviction why Iran doesn't have the right to nukes if other nations do), I think things are not past a point where a leader could make a case for decisive and firm action.

Bush's contribution has been to constantly undermine the possibility that such a future leader can make that case. For instance, assume for a moment that someone like Guliani is willing to assert US military power for truly US selfish purposes, without sacrifice, and with a conviction that the US way is good and the Iranian way is evil. Given the years that Bush has prosecuted a half war against the wrong country, what are the chances that someone like that could convince voters that he could fight a real war. After what has happened in Iraq, are US voters more likely or less likely to have the stomach for a fight against Iran?

So, while the Democrats may be cheering for Bush to cut his legs off, and maneuvering to deliver some cuts themselves, Bush is primarily responsible for doing it to himself.