State Of The Union

This is my favorite passage from the President's State Of The Union speech last night:

"This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way."

What They'll Stand For

Mark Steyn made this telling comment at National Review Online during the President’s State of the Union speech this evening:

What They'll Stand For

On the other hand, Nancy flew up for the reference to Darfur and the Dems all leapt up to follow. It’s surely very revealing that the Democrats seem most enthused about the one issue where all you have to do is posture ineffectually while the UN stonewalls until everybody’s been killed. But on Iraq or anywhere else America moves beyond posturing to action the Dems sit on their hands.

Gut Check

This is from a post today by Cassandra at Villainous Company.

"Our military are committed in the short term. They are in harm's way. Waffling and infighting will not bring them home sooner; they will only place their lives in greater jeopardy, while rendering the sacrifices of those who have died or been grievously wounded meaningless. They deserve better from us.

It's time for another gut check, America. Time to stop the whining and the carping. Time to stop insulting our fighting men and women; diminishing their voluntary sacrifices by calling them children. They are not your "kids". As one reader, a Vietnam veteran, so aptly remarked last night, there are no children on a battlefield and the military does not recruit babies. They can read, write, and think for themselves by the time they sign on that dotted line and when they reenlist, as they do from combat units all over in astonishing numbers, that says something very powerful that all your condescending and cynical rhetoric can't wipe away. It says that they believe in each other and in their mission even if you don't. And our President believes in them, even if you don't.

What a sad, sad commentary that is, when the American people have lost confidence in the armed forces who have served them so nobly and so well under such difficult circumstances, under a Congress and a so-called free press who have undercut them at every turn, who have published classified details of vulnerabilities in their body armor so snipers would have a clearer idea of how to defeat it, all in the name of "freedom".

And you, the people of America, stood silent and allowed this.

You, the people of America, the conspicuous consumers, did not object, did not cancel your subscriptions to the New York Times, because that would be inconvenient.

And now you are tired of war. Only 28% of you approve of the President, and you sit passively in your homes, waiting for him to explain the war to you better, to "ask you to sacrifice". Like spoiled babies, you whine pathetically because the President hasn't asked you nicely enough to participate in this war.

Do you, perhaps, require detailed instructions? An engraved invitiation? What mystical force prevents you from "sacrificing" unless and until the President of the United States asks you to? Do you lack the willpower to turn off the television and stay out of the Mall? To keep away from that recruiter's office? It must be horribly, horribly difficult for you.

I pity anyone who feels so powerless that remain a prisoner in their own home, forced into inaction and at the mercy of a President they openly despise; a man with all the formidable intellectual prowess of a mildly retarded chimpanzee who (we are told) somehow managed to rout not one but two vastly smarter opponents in national elections as the Free People of the United States looked on in helpless horror. And that was before he shredded the Constitution and fed it to Barney the White House terrier, completing our national paralysis."

Quote Of The Day

Absurdity, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Petulant Children

I discovered this recent post by neo-neocon which perfectly sums up my thoughts about the opponents of the war and our current situation in Iraq. Our lack of will and focus as a nation to see this through disturbs me greatly. I find it even more disturbing that a recent poll showed 34% of Democrat respondents said they “personally” did not want President Bush’s new Iraq strategy to succeed. I am disgusted by these petulant children as well as the politicians and MSM who cater to their mercurial whims.

“(T)hose who require moral perfection in our actions on the world stage are either hopelessly idealistic and out of touch with the consequences of what acting on that idealism would have wrought (in this case, the triumph of the Soviets, and later the Iranians), or they are cynically mouthing arguments they don't even believe.

I wish the world were otherwise. But it's not, and pretending the lion has already lain down with the lamb is an absurdity, or worse. There are plenty of lions out here, about to devour huge herds of lambs, and sometimes all we can do is back the lion who seems less voracious.

The funny thing about the whole thing (and I mean funny-strange, not funny ha-ha) is that it is the neocon philosophy that represents one of the only strategies offering a possible way out of the realpolitik dilemma. And yet those who criticize our realpolitik decisions to back dictators also criticize our neonconnish decisions to overthrow them and try to institute a better and more democratic form of government. Odd, isn't it?

Make no mistake about it, however: the neocon notion that we should attempt actions designed to transform these countries into something better is not an easy one to execute, as Iraq has demonstrated (and, by the way, it does not always involve our waging war--sometimes it involves our supporting internal forces within the country itself, as suggested presently for Iran).

I'm disappointed in the missteps of the Bush administration while occupying Iraq (examples: not stopping the looters, not taking Sadr out, way back when). But I don't believe any of these to be insurmountable even now--if we had the political will in this country to understand how important it is to succeed at the task.

This is the stark choice we face: (1) realpolitik business as usual, "he's a thug but at least he's our thug;" (2) inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world; or (3) trying to transform these regions into functioning democracies that protect human rights.

The latter is the neocon agenda, and I'm all for it. I consider it the best alternative of the lot. But I don't consider myself naive about how difficult it is to do this and how much of an investment in time, energy, money, blood, and will it would cost to succeed. But the alternatives would ultimately demand a greater human sacrifice, and entail even more suffering.

Take your choice.”

Quote Of The Day

Hanlon’s Razor
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

The Return Of The Boneless Wonders

"I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder.' My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder--sitting on the Treasury Bench."

--Winston Churchill, January 28, 1931, in the House of Commons, referring to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald


Victor Davis Hanson at NRO’s The Corner:

"After listening tonight to Wesley Clark, Dick Durbin, Tom Vilsack, Nancy Pelosi, etc. I still can't for the life of me learn what they want to do. Not one will support Ted Kennedy's cut-off of funds. Apparently the party line is that we can't win, but we're afraid to pull out in case we do, and so we will equivocate as we watch the battlefield and make the necessary rhetorical adjustments just in time. Just what we saw in the past Reid/Biden/etc. call for the surge, then huff/puff when they got their wish. Apparently the shame of 1974-5 cut-offs apparently still haunt the entire party."


From the office of Congressman Joe Wilson (R, SC):

"In December, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes stated,

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq ... I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
— Newsweek, December 5, 2006

President Bush's path forward in Iraq, unveiled Wednesday evening, largely matches Chairman Reyes' recommendation. "I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq...These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations," Bush stated.
— The White House, January 10, 2007

Chairman Reyes, however, has changed his tune. "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level."...Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens.
— El Paso Times, January 11, 2007"


Robert A. George writes in "Snatching Defeat From Victory":

"I'm not going to pay a personal price," she said. "My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Boxer talked about families losing loved ones and soldiers in hospital burn units. "These are the people who pay the price."

Rice said evenly that she understands the sacrifice of service members and families.
"I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom. ..."

Boxer cut her off.

"Madam Secretary, please," she said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family"? (emphasis added).

Despicable.

Consider the uproar if a Republican senator said something similar to, say, Janet Reno in the Clinton administration? But Boxer should get a free pass because she happens to be the same gender as Rice? No way.

Going after the bollixed-up Iraq policy was fair game -- from senators of both parties, no question. Ripping the whole "surge" plan is also fine. But suggesting the secretary of state doesn't care about the human costs because she's childless?

And the Democrats wonder why the public is wary about their ability to govern with any sense of fairness or decency. It's this kind of haughty, condescending behavior that turned Americans against Democrats in the first place."


And finally, William Kristol in The Weekly Standard:

"So the Boneless Wonders will push a nonbinding resolution to, as Joe Biden put it, "demonstrate to the president he's on his own." Sure, the resolution will weaken the president's hand abroad--but that's not their problem. It will lessen the chances of success in Iraq--but that's above their pay grade. It will dispirit friends and embolden enemies--but maybe there won't be much attention paid overseas to some non-binding congressional resolution. It will send the message to the soldiers fighting in Iraq that help is not on the way--that there are no reinforcements. That's unfortunate. But, hey--they volunteered.

And how about Sen. Obama on the Today show? "We're not going to babysit a civil war." To serious people that sounds juvenile. To most of his colleagues, it's a good soundbite.

It's a demoralizing and revolting spectacle."

Quote Of The Day

"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
- President Ronald Reagan

I Hear Okinawa Is Nice, Especially This Time Of Year

It didn't take long for the new Congressional leadership to make their feelings about Iraq known to President Bush. In a letter sent to the president yesterday, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi said "The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people." The November election was a mid-term Congressional election not a Presidential election and the vote tally certainly didn't provide the new Congressional leadership with any kind of “mandate” regarding the war.

Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi go on to quote General John Abizaid at length from his Senate Armed Services testimony of November 15, 2006 to buttress their contention that “surging” additional American troops “will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point”. They even go so far as to offer the following plan:

“Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.”

In direct opposition to this "plan", here are some quotes from General Abizaid’s prepared statement from November 15, 2006 (emphasis added):

“Today the committee will no doubt focus on the way ahead in Iraq and rightfully so. Yet we must be mindful of increasing threats from Iran as evidenced by its recent military exercise, which was designed to intimidate the smaller nations in the region. We must also be mindful of the real and pervasive global threat presented by al Qaida and its associated movements. Failure to stabilize Iraq could increase Iranian aggressiveness and embolden al Qaida’s ideology. It could also deepen broader Sunni-Shia fissures throughout the region. The changing security challenges in Iraq require changes to our own approach to achieve stability. Let me remind the committee, however, that while new options are explored and debated, my testimony should not be taken to imply approval of shifts in direction.”

“Our commanders and diplomats believe it is possible to achieve an endstate in Iraq that finds Iraq at peace with its neighbors, an ally in the war against extremists, respectful of the lives and rights of its citizens, and with security forces sufficient to maintain order, prevent terrorist safe havens and defend the independence of Iraq. At this stage in the campaign, we’ll need flexibility to manage our force and to help manage the Iraqi force. Force caps and specific timetables limit flexibility. We must also remember that our enemies have a vote in this fight. The enemy watches not only what we do on the ground but what we say and do here at home."

Indeed, they do. And while Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi opine that only the Iraqi’s “can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq” I fear the Iranians and al Qaida might think they have something to say about it as well. All they have to do is wait while the new Congressional leadership does the heavy lifting for them by forcing a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi’s utter and total misunderstanding of the situation will have a profound immediate and long term impact as they begin to make their influence felt in this debate.