OPINION & EDITORIAL
Democrats’ stance on war cowardly
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Will Smith:
- Imus' fate should depend on market, not critics (April 12, 2007)
- Deregulation of campaigns vital (March 29, 2007)
- Israel right to reject Hamas government (March 22, 2007)
- Gore good choice for nomination (March 15, 2007)
- Prosecutor tarnishes Libby, justice system (March 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- In battle over funding, Dems have power, potential (October 30, 2007)
- Democrats lack specific strategy (February 1, 2007)
- Despite stunt, Republicans will need to answer in 2006 (November 21, 2005)
- Anti-war, pro-troops (September 21, 2007)
by Will Smith
Thursday, February 22, 2007
As the anti-war drum beat grows louder in Congress with an anti-troop-surge resolution passing in the House this week, it is increasingly obvious that the ultimate losers in this national debate over Iraq will be the Democrats and anti-Iraq icons like Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Penn.
Last Friday, the House passed a nonbinding resolution rejecting the president's plan for a troop surge in Iraq, a military strategy designed to better combat sectarian violence around Baghdad. The resolution garnered a vote of 246-182, with seventeen Republicans joining the Democratic majority. Senate Democrats have been working on a similar measure, but failed to bring the measure to a vote this week. Immediately after the successful House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., proclaimed bipartisan support for the measure, with the speaker saying the vote "will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home." Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi failed to recognize that this resolution is neither bipartisan nor effective.
The seventeen Republicans that voted for the resolution compose just more than 8 percent of GOP House members, rendering this resolution a largely partisan maneuver. Yet when the Democrats declared "bipartisan" support for the resolution, they lost credibility as honest participants in the debate on Iraq. By disingenuously painting the vote in opposition to the president's troop surge as a consensus position, the Democrats were trying to deceive the American public into rejecting the surge without considering its merit. The Democrats' motivation was to bolster their chances to take back the White House in two years by further crushing American prospects for success in Iraq.
Before we reject the Bush administration's plans to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq over the next few months, let's consider this: Why did the Senate unanimously confirm Gen. David Petraeus as the top military man in Iraq only to attempt to reject his request for a troop surge? Gen. Petraeus made no secret of his support for this measure during confirmation hearings. Now that the Democrats seek to politically and publicly undermine the president's new military commander, it is obvious that the Democrats' intentions are to lose the Iraq War politically and as quickly as possible.
The main advocate for precipitous loss in Iraq is none other than Speaker Pelosi's good friend and ex-Marine, Rep. Jack Murtha. As chairman of the defense subcommittee of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, Congressman Murtha has threatened to follow the useless nonbinding resolution with a "slow bleed" plan in which funding would be cut off indirectly by imposing restrictions on the authority of the commander-in-chief and attaching the restrictions to the $93 billion supplemental spending bill. Congressman Murtha's explicit strategy is to hobble the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, an unprecedented attempt to usurp legitimate constitutional power vested in the president in wartime, which dangerously undermines our troops and their mission.
The Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it too. They claim to support the troops, and that they will not do anything to undermine troop safety, yet actively threaten to cut off funding. There are only two explanations for this anti-troop ultimatum by Democratic leadership: genuine anti-Americanism or political posturing. I'll give Congressman Murtha & Co. the benefit of the doubt that they are not anti-American, leaving slimy political posturing as the only reasonable explanation for their desire to bring about immediate failure in Iraq.
The Democrats' hatred for our president has blinded them to the point where their only raison d'etre is to defeat his legacy and the Republican Party in 2008. To advance their narrow agenda, the Democrats are attempting to force an American loss, bequeathing to the Democratic Party an unlimited supply of political ammunition against Republicans. If America is still engaged in combat during the 2008 election cycle, Democrats will run on a "withdraw from Iraq" platform; it is lose the war in 2007 or lose the presidency in 2008. The only unwanted result is a successful surge leading to a more stable Iraq, for that will expose the Democratic leadership for what they are: cowards who play politics with the lives of American soldiers. Republicans do not like the mess in Iraq any more than Democrats, but the president and his allies understand that the cost of failure is far worse than the current toll and that winning should not be a partisan issue.
In the coming months, we'll see whether the Democrats have the political will to gamble the safety of our troops in a pathetic game of opportunistic Schadenfreude. The troop surge has by no means widespread bipartisan support and is the only viable option on the table to stabilize Iraq. Hopefully, the Democrats will restrict themselves to pointless nonbinding resolutions but — if Congressman Jack Murtha gets his way — don't expect success in Iraq any time soon. The Democrats intend to sink the ship to get the captain, and damn the consequences.
Will Smith (wsmith@badgerherald.com) is a freshman majoring in political science and religious studies.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 7:35am):
The current Vegas line has this thread receiving at least six comments today.
Mr. Smith, cowardly is a strong word. Have you visited your local recruiter this morning?
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 7:53am):
I don't understand how cutting off money for the war hurts the troops. Wouldn't they just come home if the cash runs dry? Maybe Feingold should sponsor a bill to buy every soldier a plane ticket back to the States.
Maybe Bush needs to start supporting the troops by getting the VA hospitals in order. If you break 'em (the troops), you buy 'em.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 9:03am):
You make some great points....
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 9:22am):
You support adding more troops? I'm guessing you are not enlisted...
You treat troops in this matter as commodities. But, the majority does not approve of sending in more people who can and will die when the obvious answer is not the US increasing its involvement.
The answer is the US decreasing its involvement by properly training and empowering the Iraqi government, which this administration has so horrendously done. Instead of writing them a blank check and giving them thousands of bodies to wage their own sectarian civil war (look up civil war in the dictionary...), we should be setting stern deadlines and be serious about Iraq solving it's own problems, not continuing an undeniably fallacy-based occupation.
Your opinion is immature and uninformed. Democrat's are not acting cowardly. What is cowardly is a party refusing to admit their mistakes and not taking steps to remedy it, and rather add more flame to the fire while innocent people die everyday. This war is and has been wrong from the start, admittedly by everyone involved. The only way to solve this is to give back what we've taken... a sovereign nation.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 10:32am):
Will Smith, why don't you get your perky little patriotic butt on down to that recruiter's office and enlist if you're that worried about our troops. Go to Iraq, get wounded and come back and spend a little time in one of those nice VA hospitals, complete with incompetent staff, roaches and rats crawling around your bed and totally substandard care. Then we'll be interested in hearing what you have to say about our troops. It's the government that sent them over there that's turning their backs on them, not us "cowards".
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 10:49am):
I'm glad someone had the balls to say it. Fuck the democrats!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:25am):
Fuck the Republicans, bunch of baby-killing warmongers! You never had any justification for the war! YOU go fight. We'll stay here and get on with our lives. Get ready for some harsh treatment when you get back, just like your Vietnam predecessors. Spitting on you and not allowing you to get a job is now perfectly justified. Do us a favor and stay in the military. That's where you and your ilk belong.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:07pm):
great arguments...and 11:25...you epitomize everything that is so wrong about the left. Thank you for reaffirming the lack of support for the troops that comes from them. Also...who are the babykillers?? haha
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:14pm):
Mr. Smith,
What an excellently written commentary on the current political situation surrounding the war in Iraq. This is made more so by the fact that you indentify yourself as a Freshman. Kudos to your High School teachers for instilling in you the ability to accurately and succintly frame your argument. Many a "professional" journalist could learn a thing or two.
I've been in many a VA and military hospital in my 24 year career in the military. Please, anonymous # 4, tell me where these sub-standard facilites with roaches and rats crawling around the patients are. I've certainly not experienced it. As for the incompetent staff, I've experienced some, but no more than I've found in civilian hospitals. I think your rhetoric is nothing more than hot air spewed by a person with the inability to think for themself.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:44pm):
C'mon guys, maybe some tax cuts will make you feel better.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 2:32pm):
I cannot understand how someone could use the arguement of "YOU go fight. We'll stay here and get on with our lives." That is the denfinition of a coward.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 2:54pm):
That's certainly one way to look at it.
On the other hand, we could look back several years and see the "political games" the Republicans were playing then. Pulling troops out of a struggling nation is nothing compared to fabricating excuses to thrust our soldiers into war in the first place. The basis for this war is unfounded, there are no tangible definitions of "winning" or "losing," and trying to end it, while misguided (I agree), does not indicate a massive conspiracy.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:00pm):
2:32, I can understand that talk is cheap.
How much have any of us sacrificed? Basically, America HAS collectively gone on with their lives. Some nut job always compares this war to WWII, but that generation actually made tangible sacrifices for the war. We got tax cuts.
General Motors stopped producing automobiles so they could build bombers during the war. We got 0% financing.
During WWII, Americans had to ration supplies like food and metal. We were told to "go buy stuff" to keep the economy going.
We are all cowards who DO NOT and WILL NOT sacrifice. Carry on with your lives... for freedom, wuss.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:10pm):
Some "thoughts" from an old Marine pilot........
Harvard, our nation's oldest and most prestigious university, banned ROTC in 1969. Military recruiters are banned, too, from entering Harvard Yard. Not even posters promoting military service are allowed.
It is fair to say that our universities are marginalized, that they are incestuous enclaves of leftist thought, that they are no longer in the American mainstream. But such intellectual arrogance is not new. George Orwell said that "England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their nationality."
It is folly to expect the poor kid to put his life on the line to protect the rich kid's inheritance. We all have a stake in this nation, and we should all "hold up our end of the log". Or as Thomas Paine more eloquently said it, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
To recite the "pledge of allegiance' is not to engage in jingoism or blind nationalism, but rather to affirm that we are a federal republic, under God, committed to liberty and justice. It should also serve to remind us that "freedom ain't free".
As the grandson of humble Serbian immigrants, the greatness of America was part and parcel of my childhood learning experience. There was an inherent sense of obligation to "give back " to this country that had offered the gifts of freedom and religious tolerance. We served out of a sense of duty.....and, may I say, love of country.
We took nothing for granted. Guaranteed rights? Only ideas written on parchment. Guaranteed only insofar as we were prepared to be the "guarantors". To hear the contemporary dialogue, the "my rights" crowd seems to believe that these rights come naturally, and unconditionally, to this country from someplace deep in the cosmos.
The academic environment has changed dramatically. The great ideas of the founders, the tolerance of the Judeo-Christian principles incorporated into our founding documents, has given way to a micro-examination of our national sins......genocide against the Indian tribes, slavery, economic rape of the country's natural resources, despoilment of our waterways....you get my drift.
Who can love such a country? These new fertile minds are poisoned with ideas that lead to a national loathing.
It is imperative that this change......and change fast. This nation's greatness, and the reasons for its greatness, must be reaffirmed in schools and colleges, not arrogantly but honestly. When our schools once again recognize that this nation is indeed special, and impart the reasons for this greatness........political, religious, social, economic.....to the next generation, then our problems with national service will disappear.
PS These observations were expressed before a high school convocation on Veteran's Day 2001 following 9/11. The students gave the speaker a standing ovation. The faculty, nearly unanimously, disapproved.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:22pm):
First of all, everyone of these writers should learn something both from the argument presented and the comments you write to it. One thing you might be interested to note is that while you jump to conclusions to try and negate the intelligent argument of this writer you fail to learn more. Why could this writer not be in the military you assume but fail to learn the real facts.
Second of all, he is completely right and while this is a poltiical mess the fact remains that it exists and it will do no one any good to destabilize the troops and allow Iran to infiltrate Iraq further destabilizing it, allowing Iran to get closer to territorial hegemony, whilst continuing their desire for nuclear power. You should all also note that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah financially and that they have been supplying the Iraqi shiites with a lot of weapons to destabilize our troops. Thus the situation in iraq is heavily tied to that of iran and it would only be dangerous and irresponsible to withdraw. It is a very complicated issue and pulling out would only demonstrate a narrow minded view of hte world reflecting us views of isolationsm. However, in our new technologically advanced society our water barrier no long protects us and should we leave the conflict will not end.
i would suggest to any of you random angry people to maybe take a class on the middle east or maybe a few, an international relations class, and maybe just maybe think before you pass judgements on people it is a good habit in life. Learning this subject matter may allow you to make a better argument for your case if you actualy display any knowledge of the subject in a comment rather than spew hatred.
BTW your comments fail to comply with the guidelines of this site as well as promote healthy discourse they are simply offensive, rude, and do not reflect any of you as engaging in the actual purpose of intellectual dialogue.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:28pm):
These "chicken-hawk" memes are so childishly misguided you would think Leftists (who consider themselves superior logicians and cerebral sophisticates) would be too embarrassed to keep repeating them.
Do I need to join the Fire Department to be against fighting fires? Do I need to join the Police Department to take tough on crime positions? Under Leftist logic, Ted Kennedy's inheritance disqualifies him from any anti-poverty advocacy.
Should the Framers have limited voter franchise in presidential elections to military personnel and their parents-- and maybe their grandparents-- but not aunts, uncles, brother, sisters or cousins?
I'd be willing to leave all decisions on Iraq policy to ONLY serving military members. Would Leftists?
Now take your own advise and STFU!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 4:00pm):
All of the liberal comments listed above, solidify what everyone knows... liberals get nasty and insulting when anyone has an opposing view. Instead of citing quality counterpoints, they show their ignorance by making comments like those above. I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant. It shows that they don't have any valid points (I've never met a liberal that has) to make an intelligent argument. Keep letting your true colors show, libs. We love it!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 4:14pm):
All of the liberal comments listed above, solidify what everyone knows... liberals get nasty and insulting when anyone has an opposing view. Instead of citing quality counterpoints, they show their ignorance by making comments like those above. I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant. It shows that they don't have any valid points (I've never met a liberal that has) to make an intelligent argument. Keep letting your true colors show, libs. We love it!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 5:39pm):
3:28, you don't even know what you support. You're as bad as the democrats without a war strategy. You're solution to any problem is drop bombs and make parking lots out of regions of the world.
OK, make parking lots, but then what? Are the "moselms" or "hitlerists" going to be a perpetual thorn in your side because you think America should be able to do whatever it wants? Why on earth would anyone hate a Super-power with obvious goals to be an empire of capitalism?
Are you upset that Iraq and Iran won't let BP and Exxon freely suck their natural resourses dry? Are you a fair person, or are you a selfish, short-sighted, prick asshole? I'm guessing the latter.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 6:01pm):
Will Smith rules.
AND he is in the military.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 6:01pm):
I must say there is a certain amount of enthusiasm I get when I see people in college conerned about these issues.
One thing I would point out to you Will is that your implication that it is only the left or the Democrats who oppose this thing is pretty thin.
I would encourgage you to read "Six Brutal Truths About Iraq" by General William Odom which you can pull up on the Internet by plugging in the title.
Odom is a former Nation Security Adviser to Ronald Reagan, fellow at the conservative Husdon institute and Yale professor. He is not exactly a friend of the liberals.
"Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that's just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are NOT models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half of totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany." -- General Odom
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 7:24pm):
Right, 6:01, "conservatives" don't start wars. They prefer to pay the government as little as possible and maintain a basic defensive military. An offensive military is a neo-con concoction with origins in pro-Israel think tanks. Why would Israel want to conduct a preemptive war in its backyard and cash out, when America is just itching to use its enormous, throbbing, purple-headed military?
We stuck it in a fat chick. Regrets?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
