| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Campaigning on Defeat |
| 2004-04-17 |
| Even the most partisan critics of the war in Iraq insist they are every bit as determined as President Bush to secure a democratic peace there. Regardless of whether the administration’s decision to go to war was correct, they say, the United States cannot now afford to cut and run. Yet, even as the president’s opponents give lip service to the importance of victory, they seize upon every setback suffered, exploit every challenge ahead, to suggest that defeat is inevitably what our nation is doomed to suffer. Their fatalism is often veiled — allusions to Vietnam, innuendo about quagmires — but the implications are clear. For the president’s critics, there is a domestic constituency to be won from failure abroad. They are campaigning on defeat. To be sure, there can and should be a robust While some cynics may dismiss the hand-wringing from the halls of Congress and elsewhere as little more than electioneering, its effects are far more profound. This is not just a question of political honesty. The global war on terrorism is not a game from which we can simply walk away when it seems it isn’t going our way. At the same time critics of the Bush administration insist it should have done more to combat al Qaeda in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 (on the basis of intelligence far weaker than that pointing to Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction), they miss the more profound lesson that national tragedy should have instilled: that the only deterrent to terrorism is strength and that weakness -- real and perceived -- is an incitement to further attacks. What is weakness? Weakness is when America’s leaders compare Iraq to Vietnam, announcing to the world a faltering resolve to see our mission through. To our allies in the Middle East and beyond, these predictions of defeat send a clear and chilling message to hedge their bets, because the United States cannot be counted on. And to our enemies, they send an equally clear message: You can win. Let there be no doubt: Every time there is a call to abandon Iraq to the United Nations or unnamed "international allies," our enemies know this is a call to cut and run. And they are heartened. The president’s critics cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim to be in favor of winning the war and also oppose fighting it, funding it and offering any coherent strategy for succeeding at it. They cannot credibly claim to be in favor of winning the war while decrying it as a "mistake" that cannot be won. Iraq is no longer a war of choice, if indeed it ever was. The choice now is between the long, hard slog to victory -- and negotiating terms of surrender. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #8 This is one of the reasons, if not the major reason, why I keep hammering away at leftists over the war on terrorism. Every word they utter in disparaging our military mission in Iraq, every lie I hear uttered such as (I support the troops, but I dont think they should be over there-type bullsh*t) here and elsewhere emboldens and inspires a ruthless enemy to ever new lows of hostile intent and conduct. That means every bullet, every bit of shrapnel, every degree of hostile heat generated that touches any of our people, or our allies, the left should be held accountable for from their remarks. And not in the fall. Now. Even to this day, with 3,000 people on our own soil murdered in a dispicable and cowardly attack and a gross demonstration in Fallujah of the extent to which jihadis will go to kill Americans, even to kill their own people including children and women, the left still thinks this is just some big fun game of Who-can-be-the-biggest-humanitarian, with no consequences for their words as they apply to others. They're dead wrong. And I mean every syllable uttered in contempt for our effort in military operations should be met with such outrage, they cannot even speak of such things while we have troops under fire. Not one word. Note: I had to wake up early, so I am really cranky this morning, but I meant every word I just typed. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-04-17 1:14:05 PM |
| #7 Fmr Sen Thompson has the understanding of the situation. He needs to educate some of his current colleagues, if that is remotely possible Unfortunately "Hunt for Red October" also had as the Jack Ryan character, ALEC BALDWIN. Was this unequal time? |
| Posted by: Anonymous4052 2004-04-17 12:46:17 PM |
| #6 Virginian: I'll take Door #2. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-17 11:15:58 AM |
| #5 Fred Thompson also is a television and film actor. He had a memorable bit part in The Hunt for Red October as a Navy Battle Group Commander. He is also on Law & Order. Consider him our man in Hollywood. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-04-17 11:15:15 AM |
| #4 Dave - thanks for recalibrating my surprise meter. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-17 9:24:45 AM |
| #3 Don't get too hopeful for an outbreak of common sense at the WaPo: this is an opinion piece by former Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN). |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-17 9:08:51 AM |
| #2 wow! That was a WaPo article. I clicked on the link expecting it to be a blogger since it's so rare to see common sense written in a newspaper. I didn't want to set up a registration - anyone know who the author was? |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-17 8:56:54 AM |
| #1 The critics seem to think that we have the luxury of playing political football with the war, as if there will be no consequences to the demoralizing effect of their propaganda. They seem to be insufficiently afraid for their own and their children's freedom and even survival. Either that or they are just power-crazed cynics. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-04-17 7:04:57 AM |