I know, I know. The title to this post is a real shocker. I hope you were sitting down.
Frankly, the effort’s of Congress to dictate foreign policy and war strategy is nothing new in the history of armed conflict and American politics, and virtually all presidents in time of war have had to deal with congressional interference.
The deja vu with this Congress and it’s effort to micro manage defeat using similar Vietnam era style tactics is most disheartening. 3,000,000 Vietnamese were massacred or died in re-education camps because of the American cut and run forced on our troops by the Democratic Congress of the time.
Abandoning Iraq and letting the bloodbath begin isn’t an option for America, a nation rich in law and practice regarding the value of human life. Unless, of course, your a liberal Democrat, with millions of aborted babies under your belt, a burning desire to make suicide as acceptable as getting a drivers license and even putting the deformed out of their misery because of “quality of life” issues. With that record, what’s a few more bodies?
Only the Socialist Left in America wants to cut and run from Iraq, consequences be damned. Why? Because anything even perceived as an American defeat, is a source of glee and pleasure. Anything that damages the reputation, dimishes the influence or injures cohesion or security of the American nation is what these people are all about.
Imagining the lie about “supporting the troops, but against the war” is believable is another example of self delusion and shows an arrogance about the aptitude of their fellow countrymen. No culture, society or nation on earth honors cowards, or those who break their promises. Fighting the enemies of this country at home is every bit as important as fighting those abroad.
Never give up.
==============================================================================
Excerpts from The Politico article:
“In 1973, Congress sought to deal with its de facto exclusion by passing, over President Richard Nixon’s veto, a War Powers Resolution. It required the White House to cease hostilities within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes military force or extends the time. Every president since Nixon has viewed the key provisions of the resolution as unconstitutional.”
“During the Korean War, there was hot talk on Capitol Hill of impeaching President Harry Truman for having sacked Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.”
“As the war went on, it often solicited testimony from both high-ranking and junior officers. It leaked secret testimony to newspapers to sway public opinion. And it repeatedly pressed President Abraham Lincoln, sometimes successfully, to dismiss generals not to its liking.
Shortly before taking on the committee’s chairmanship, Wade wrote a friend that Lincoln’s views on slavery “could only come of one born of poor white trash and educated in a slave state.”
“On numerous occasions, they browbeat the president to remove a general or endorse a piece of legislation they thought was important. They were angered when Lincoln did not give in. They complained about the president’s humor and his penchant for handling conflict by telling anecdotes.”
The Politico is new, but right on top of the facts for now. Read the rest here.
March 12, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Hi Hank
I always wondered why politicians run wars. Sergeants should be in charge because they have the most at stake and are the only people that know what is going on.
The supporting the troops, but against the war statement is as dumb as Hillary’s, “If I would have known then what I know now I would have voted against the war.” The frightening thing is that she thinks it makes her appear thoughtful and wise. So lets see…
“If I would have known then what I know now I would have bet everything I had on the Colts and could now retire.”
Nope not wise only pathetic.
Lord Crimson
March 13, 2007 at 12:19 am
Ya know, the bloodbath has already begun and if victory is continuing this war for the next 100 years and losing even more thousands of men and women (along with civil liberties)…then I want no part of it. I miss America.
March 13, 2007 at 12:27 am
[…] post by icanplainlysee and plugin by Elliott Back […]
March 13, 2007 at 4:38 am
Why do you miss America? Do you live in Canada or something?
March 13, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Hi LC,
I’m for the Colts, but against the NFL.
If Murtha had gone ahead and taken the $25,000 when he had the chance instead of holding out for more, I wonder who would be spewing left wing sedition and plotting to usurp presidential authority?
I believe congressional defeatists secretly cheer these efforts, lacking the guts to publicly blurt their true affection for dismantling American hyperpower in the world.
Mrs. Clinton does have an adaptive quality which leads to exposure of the typical politicians mindset: be all things to all people. The doubleminded, waffling and incontinent of this world have their candidate.
Completely agree with your Sgt. assessment. Higher ups assign the tasks, Sergeants get the job done.
Hank
March 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Hi Shane,
Worrying about what may never happen amounts to paying your dues twice, in case something actually does.
Let’s hope your morbid assessment of war for 100 years is hysterical in it’s accuracy, and when you personally suffer any kind of loss of civil liberties that we all enjoy and hold dear, let me know. For now, that’s another just hysterical claim.
And please remember, the liberties your fretting about losing are provided by the SOLDIER, not the weaselly anti-war protester, or the hand wringer, or the self involved political activist.
March 13, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hi Lone,
Sadly, many millions of Americans, so caught up in narrow personal agendas, clamoring for their little groups special privileges and insisting society reshape itself to meet their vision, feel like strangers in a foreign land.
Just shows you what creating melodrama at every turn can do to twist reality out of recognition.
Hank
March 13, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“Cutting” your losses is a valid strategy to consider even with respect to Iraq. However, in foreign policy, “running” away is not a strategy, it’s usually a panic reaction.
Unusually, the Dems “cut and run” Iraq Plan, is a strategy for winning the elections in 2008. It is an emotionally based, calculated strategy. The strategy does nothing for Iraq, nor does it address the real situations in the Middle East and/or the GWOT. And that is the truly insidious aspect of the Dems’ Plan.
In fighting a war or for the peace, the best strategy is to minimize and focus. Minimize loss of assets and lives. Focus on the goals.
In the case of Iraq, the focus has been and should continue to be – establish and nurture a seedling of freedom in the Middle East to give it a good chance to grow and thrive.
The Dems’ 2008 election strategy is tantamount to “running with scissors” – dangerous and not recommended.
March 13, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I’m just curious why the advent of the 20th century idea of world warfare has influenced us so much to believe it to be the norm instead of the exception to it…did we not enjoy long periods of peace from the time of the Revolutionary War until the influence of the international bankers drug our country, kicking and screaming, into the whole system of war profiteering and wars of questionable ideology?
Also…since when is it OK to go against the implicit instructions of the U.S. Constitution in allowing an Executive to declare war by fiat? How did we allow that tar-baby out of the bag? I know the history…just things to consider.
March 13, 2007 at 6:37 pm
jeremiasx:
Actually, you don’t know the history. First of all, war has continously been going on for a very long time. At no period has there been total peace on the earth and the absence of the threat of war. “World Warfare” is not hardly a twentieth-century idea. The Romans once held all of the known world. Alexander the Great once wept because there were no more worlds to conquer. The European powers France, England, and Spain all once dreamed of mighty empires spanning the globe. The natives of central and south America routinely fought over land, seeking to dominate all of the are that they knew of. I could go on and on.
The Executive did not declare war by fiat, he went to war with the full approval of the Congress. Congress also voted to approve funding. They have not passed any binding resolutions designed to stop him. Therefore, he did not declare war by fiat.
March 13, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi Civis,
Your point about establishing democracy in that area of the world, on it’s face, is the only way to eventually upend the police states that manage the lives of those people. Fact is, being completely unfamiliar with self governance, ever, making the idea work was always a longshot at best, and is a big obstacle.
Now is the best chance for dramatic change. The question becomes do these people want to struggle and strain their way through making freedom happen?
I agree the Dems, the leadership anyway, see every move, every bit of fallout, every policy as groundwork for ’08.
Little room is left for actual improvement for the Iraqi’s and certainly anything which helps America succeed will be jettisoned upon appearance.
Hank