RESOULTION FOR DEFEAT - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
The Senate is poised to pass this week a non - binding Resolution expressing non support for the increase in the number of troops that are currently in Iraq. This reaction follows the announcement by the President of an increase of troop strength of 21, 500 based on a new strategy of gaining full control of the troubled areas in Iraq which are mainly located in and around Baghdad. The increase in troops and the strategy are a result of plans that were developed by both the Pentagon, in field Commanders and Presidential military advisers. An increase deemed necessary by new Multi National Commander General David Petraeus who the Senate confirmed unanimously.
The Resolution is a result of a combined effort lead by Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. While all but two Democrats not surprisingly support the Resolution only a handful of Republicans have expressed their support which was the reasoning for the compromise Resolution in order to gain enough GOP support to prevent a filibuster. The two Democrats Christopher Dodd,(D CONN), and Russell Feingold, (D WIS), are not supporting the compromise because they support the increase but because the new version does not call for a defunding of the war!
While the Resolution is non - binding which means that regardless the President as Commander in Chief can still go forward with the increase, it does have far reaching ramifications that make it a dangerous and defeatist attempt by the Senate to undermine the war and our troops. It also shows a complete hypocrisy by Senators who support the Resolution
The hypocrisy - The Senate hypocrisy is two fold concerning this defeatist resolution. Nearly every Senator is on record prior to the Iraq invasion expressing support for attacking Iraq and in fact most emphatically stated that it was necessary for United States National Security and that it was the right move by the President and he had their complete support. Secondly last week the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus as the new Iraq Commander. The Senate expressed their complete confidence in his abilities and expertise in command and full confidence in his strategy in handling military affairs in Iraq. A strategy that I might add is in TOTAL agreement with the President including his statement of the necessity of the additional troops.
Message to the troops - while in the short term the Resolution does not effect the troops the message that it sends has an immediate and very damaging effect to troop morale. Our soldiers deserve the complete support of the people AND their elected officials. In passing and even debating this Resolution the United States Senate is in essence stating to our troops that they do not support what they are doing. It can only be taken by the soldier in the field as a slap in the face to their service for our country and the sacrifice and accomplishment they are making daily for the cause of freedom. A mission that they support and in which they voluntarily serve and that the Senate is demeaning by their politically based statement which is designed for the enhancement of their personal careers rather than support for our troops as Senators claim it to be.
Message to the enemy - after the United States pulled out of Somalia shortly after the infamous, "Black Hawk Down, " incident, Usama Bin Laden came to the realization and stated that America did not have the stamina to fight a sustained war nor the strength to face the death of our soldiers and citizens. This lead directly to the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks. This Resolution sends a similar message to the enemy in the fact that it states that a governing body of the United States of America is siding against the military effort that is fighting this enemy. Which only encourages both insurgents and terrorists alike to fight with a new vigor as they are emboldened to believe that the harder they fight the more likely the United States will leave because the will to complete the mission and achieve total victory is not in our make up.
We entered this war against terrorism united as a nation with a resolve to see it through to final victory both in remembrance of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks and to end the scourge of terrorism so that we nor our children would ever have to face the sorrow and anger of that September morning again. When we entered Iraq nearly everyone agreed of its necessity and its association in the war against Islamic extremists and the states that support them. While no one associated Iraq directly with 9/11 all understood Hussein's terrorist ties and his support for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Everyone realized the danger of allowing this rogue state to continue and the implications of financial, weapons and yes known WMD available for support of terrorism.
Now just over five years after 9/11 victory is no longer desired and Senators and Representatives alike are reversing their stance for political expediency. Whether one supports the President or not everyone can agree that he is a man of principle and regardless of pressure or polls the security and the good of the country is foremost in his duty and his responsibility. He has not wavered in his resolve and he still understands the consequences of failure and the necessity of victory.
Standing for what is right does not mean caving to political pressure or making policy in accordance with polls and the advancement of political careers or even winning elections. This is what our Senate has become a political animal whose only interest is being elected while never standing for anything. This type of attitude would have compromised with the British during our own Revolution and we would have never become a nation. General Douglas MacArthur once said that, "in war there is no substitute for victory." In this war not only is there no substitute but it is a necessity for our nation, our security and our future. If it were left to the Senate and their resolutions we would fall to defeat and Islamic radicalism would rule the world.
Ken Taylor
The Resolution is a result of a combined effort lead by Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. While all but two Democrats not surprisingly support the Resolution only a handful of Republicans have expressed their support which was the reasoning for the compromise Resolution in order to gain enough GOP support to prevent a filibuster. The two Democrats Christopher Dodd,(D CONN), and Russell Feingold, (D WIS), are not supporting the compromise because they support the increase but because the new version does not call for a defunding of the war!
While the Resolution is non - binding which means that regardless the President as Commander in Chief can still go forward with the increase, it does have far reaching ramifications that make it a dangerous and defeatist attempt by the Senate to undermine the war and our troops. It also shows a complete hypocrisy by Senators who support the Resolution
The hypocrisy - The Senate hypocrisy is two fold concerning this defeatist resolution. Nearly every Senator is on record prior to the Iraq invasion expressing support for attacking Iraq and in fact most emphatically stated that it was necessary for United States National Security and that it was the right move by the President and he had their complete support. Secondly last week the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus as the new Iraq Commander. The Senate expressed their complete confidence in his abilities and expertise in command and full confidence in his strategy in handling military affairs in Iraq. A strategy that I might add is in TOTAL agreement with the President including his statement of the necessity of the additional troops.
Message to the troops - while in the short term the Resolution does not effect the troops the message that it sends has an immediate and very damaging effect to troop morale. Our soldiers deserve the complete support of the people AND their elected officials. In passing and even debating this Resolution the United States Senate is in essence stating to our troops that they do not support what they are doing. It can only be taken by the soldier in the field as a slap in the face to their service for our country and the sacrifice and accomplishment they are making daily for the cause of freedom. A mission that they support and in which they voluntarily serve and that the Senate is demeaning by their politically based statement which is designed for the enhancement of their personal careers rather than support for our troops as Senators claim it to be.
Message to the enemy - after the United States pulled out of Somalia shortly after the infamous, "Black Hawk Down, " incident, Usama Bin Laden came to the realization and stated that America did not have the stamina to fight a sustained war nor the strength to face the death of our soldiers and citizens. This lead directly to the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks. This Resolution sends a similar message to the enemy in the fact that it states that a governing body of the United States of America is siding against the military effort that is fighting this enemy. Which only encourages both insurgents and terrorists alike to fight with a new vigor as they are emboldened to believe that the harder they fight the more likely the United States will leave because the will to complete the mission and achieve total victory is not in our make up.
We entered this war against terrorism united as a nation with a resolve to see it through to final victory both in remembrance of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks and to end the scourge of terrorism so that we nor our children would ever have to face the sorrow and anger of that September morning again. When we entered Iraq nearly everyone agreed of its necessity and its association in the war against Islamic extremists and the states that support them. While no one associated Iraq directly with 9/11 all understood Hussein's terrorist ties and his support for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Everyone realized the danger of allowing this rogue state to continue and the implications of financial, weapons and yes known WMD available for support of terrorism.
Now just over five years after 9/11 victory is no longer desired and Senators and Representatives alike are reversing their stance for political expediency. Whether one supports the President or not everyone can agree that he is a man of principle and regardless of pressure or polls the security and the good of the country is foremost in his duty and his responsibility. He has not wavered in his resolve and he still understands the consequences of failure and the necessity of victory.
Standing for what is right does not mean caving to political pressure or making policy in accordance with polls and the advancement of political careers or even winning elections. This is what our Senate has become a political animal whose only interest is being elected while never standing for anything. This type of attitude would have compromised with the British during our own Revolution and we would have never become a nation. General Douglas MacArthur once said that, "in war there is no substitute for victory." In this war not only is there no substitute but it is a necessity for our nation, our security and our future. If it were left to the Senate and their resolutions we would fall to defeat and Islamic radicalism would rule the world.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:55 AM
7 Comments:
Not one Republican that signs this Resolution for Retreat-In-Defeat will get one dime out of me for thier next campain.
I can imagine how our Troops must feel about this bill, most of them see it as a vote of No-Confidence.
Most people lost faith in Congress before this last election, since this last election confidence in the "New Congress" has plumeted.
Is it any wonder with bills like this?
How can anyone believe it is not in our national best interest to stand up a free and friendly Iraq in the region of Islamic radicalism?
I, too, am disgusted with the spinelessness of our GOP leaders (?). Their week-mindedness does not serve their constituent's best interest nor the nation's.
Great article, Ken. Thanks for being out there!
Stay the course. I don't know why it is such a bad thing. I hate each and every death, but as john Stuart Mill implied, there are things worth dying for.
And before anyone decides to comment on the fact that I am not there, I will say that I have been, and would gladly do it again if I were young and skinny enough!
What would really be a sin would be to withdraw and make all the deaths of previous heroes meaningless. It would devalue their entire sacrifice and it would be criminal to do that! I've been to a couple of so-called conservative blogs that say the Iraqi's are nothing but trash and not worth the effort. I don't call people who think that way conservatives; I call them maniacs!
Great post, Ken! More proof that politicians are more interested in their ranks in the polls than they are in what's good for this country.
A very insightful and interesting blog. My congratulation. I may be a libertarian not fully in line with pure Reagan politics, but I cannot deny his major influence on my thinking during my formative years. Great stuff here. Kudos.
Vern, be serious. It is defeatism to view the situation as you stated "...hopelessly screwed up situation." We don't believe that it is hopeless; indeed, we believe that it is crucial that we create success!
You see individual deaths and reports of violence, and want it to end now so that people stop dying in Baghdad. I see a noble mission that is critical to the security of the US, and I see great Americans willing to fight and die for their country. I see quiting as a guarantee of thousands of civilians around the world. I see quitting as emboldening an enemy, just as it did in Afghanistan in 1989 when the Soviets withdrew.
We can, and shall prevail. I care not what pelosi and Michael Moore say, we need to all be on the same team for a change and win this thing!
dfsdafasfsdf
Post a Comment
<< Home