ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, November 21, 2005

Losing

If you haven't already read this Op-Ed by Ralph Peters, get to it...

HOW TO LOSE A WAR
By RALPH PETERS

QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.

Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.

Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.

Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
[...]
You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.

*

The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.
[...]

And, hypothetically... let's envision what would happen if Murtha's proposal were to be enacted. It contained three parts:
  1. Withdraw troops from Iraq
  2. stage them in Kuwait as a rapid response force
  3. Institute a draft

While this guy is being hailed as a military hero, his vision for a military campaign seems rather naive. First, withdrawing from Iraq will insure a civil war. The rapid response force would then have to redeploy into Iraq for a second time - and this time, instead of facing a known situation, our forces would be standing between warring parties. This is a much more dangerous situation than just keeping the lid on hostilities until a democratic government can manage the situation. Finally, instituting a draft would insure that the quality of our military forces would degrade significantly... Representative Murtha - Please read Victor Davis Hanson and the historical success that all-volunteer armies of free men (and women) has over conscripts.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (2)
Intellectual Insurgent said...

St. Wendeler,

Tell me what would constitute a win. If the U.S. loses by withdrawing, what benchmark will define a win?

St Wendeler said...

A stable form of government that recognizes individual and ethnic freedoms in Iraq would be a start. ie, a place where hope is real and terrorism is shunned.

Because the war in Iraq isn't about Iraq - it's about the Middle East and the hellhole that it's become. It's time they joined the 21st century and stopped looking backwards.