McCain: Senate aiding and abetting enemy Posted by: McQ
on Thursday, November 17, 2005
Now tell this: is he questioning their patriotism? From John McCain's New York Post op/ed "Aiding and Abetting":
At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.
Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.
Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.
Full disclosure: I'm not a McCain fan. Not at all. And I think his idea about increasing the number of troops is full of guano. But he's dead right about the old ladies in the Senate who voted for passage of this amendment, an amendment so well thought out that it received 4 minutes of debate time. 4 minutes and it gets a 79-19 vote. I'm surprised they could hold their water for 4 minutes before their nervous bladders betrayed them like they're betraying our mission in Iraq.
Consider McCain's point. Anyone looking at this amendment doesn't draw from it a declaration of our intent to win in Iraq. They instead draw from it that our first priority is the withdrawl of our troops.
And yes, I'm dead serious about this. More McCain:
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
But to do all of that you have to have moral courage. And frankly none of the 79 who voted for this travesty displayed any. Just as none of them displayed any when they passed the pork laden Highway Bill. No, to them moral courage amounts to spending what is necessary to be reelected and ducking the tough issues.
But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory.
A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.
And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win.
Someone who favors this amendment, anyone, tell me how he's wrong and back it with a convincing argument. Come on, put it in writing. And tell me how this shows resolve and moral courage in the face of adversity. Tell me how this amendment is a positive development that is good for Iraq, our troops and our nation.
The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq."
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?
Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?
Here McCain asks a body that gave an amendment of this gravity 4 minutes of debate whether they actually thought about the consequences. I'd laugh if this wasn't so pathetic.
But think about his points. Think about the Iraqi who considers risking his life to join the army or police force and now says "if they're leaving, why not wait". Or the soldiers who end up hoping not to be the last soldier killed in a failed mission, deserted by a bunch of spinless old women who give them no more thought than 4 minutes will allow. And our allies, the one's the Democrats have been so worried about for this entire time? Forget about any crediblity with them, ever. We may not be liked right now, but we at least have their attention and their respect. Cut and run from Iraq and we won't even have that.
In essence this 4 minute travesty boils down to this:
The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages.
But that is precisely the message the weak-kneed 79 are intent on sending. Imagine an opposition party leader in a time of war crowing that he'd convinced the majority party that "staying the course was not an option".
Amazing. And I'm not supposed to question their patriotism when they put their party before their nation? Bullpuckey.
Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.
Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.
Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.
For once, John McCain and I agree. To the lily-livered 79, where is your shame? We were once promised that if we committed troops to combat as we did in Vietnam we'd never waver in our resolve again to support them and their mission.
Funny how that promise, like so many uttered by the countless politicians who've promised the moon for elected office, also appears as if it will go unfullfilled.
"It's time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Korean War and Vietnam combat veteran, choking back tears during remarks to reporters. "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."
Do I hear the echo of "Peace with Honor" somewhere from the dim past? Declare victory and go home? This is like a bad movie remake. Where's William Fullbright and Morton Thurston when you need them?
For once I agree completely with McCain. It looks like Nixon is back in the White House. By fighting conservatives from Mar to Oct and governing as a leftist liberal Bush has let the MSM/DNC control the debate and destroy the support for the war. No wonder Bush ran to Asia. Way too hot here at home. Its 1973-1975 all over again, only liberal Republicans in the White House are leading the retreat. As opposed to liberal Democrats in the Congress. All those involved in telling Bush what to do from Mar to Oct should be fired! If Bush was flying by the seat of his pants he should do what Nixon did!
Why now? Why is Clinton getting up on the world stage and calling the War in Iraq a mistake, why is Rep. John Murtha offering an impassioned plea to bring the troops home now? Are they oblivious to the upcoming December 15th elections being held in Iraq? Why are senior Democratic statesmen so unwilling to wait until a new Iraqi government is formed? I certainly don’t believe we’ll have rainbows and bluebirds singing in the skies on December 15th. But, there is a possibility, however remote, that Iraqis could form a coalition government that will allow the country to remain unified and to pull back from escalating into a decades-long Algerian-style civil war.
There is a also possibility that the Al-Qaeda suicide-bombings in Jordan will cut the financing and support of the insurgency in Iraq; that Syria confronted with economic sanctions will stop allowing their country to be used as a staging ground for the Iraqi insurgency; that the Moroccan-born Peretz may play a prominent role in Israeli politics changing the tenor of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These are fragile strands of hope. I don’t understand why leaders in the Democratic party are calling for withdrawal at this particular juncture?
Yes, Katy, I also wonder about the timing. I can see no rhyme or reason except for the poll numbers and the "Bush lied" stories popping up. and 2006 elections.
It seems like we are doing pretty well now in Iraq - we’re fighting mainly in small podunk towns in Anbar and the Iraqi forces are coming up to speed.
Could it be that the Dems sense that they need to hurry and get us to withdraw to be able to pin a "loss" on the Reopublicans? Because if they wait too long and troops start coming home in 2006 without their "intervention to save them" then the "loss" becomes a "win?"
Ahhh, yeah, it’s all about their quest for power and our 2006 elections rather than hoping for a good result in Iraq.
Here are my posts on the subject: here, here and here.
For those who don’t want to wade over and read those posts, my short response is that there is nothing wrong with calling for there to be a ’significant transition’ to Iraqi sovereignty. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be doing, getting the Iraqis to the point where they can take of things themselves? As for making this ’significant’ progess in 2006, wouldn’t it be cause for disappointment if, in another 14 months, we haven’t made much in the way of progress?
There is nothing wrong with setting goals, timetables and benchmarks for our mission in Iraq. How else are the American people to tell if things are going good or not without some idea of what Bush is trying to do and the time frame he is trying to do it in?
What the opponents of this resolution seem to get confused about is that setting timetables and goals does not mean we leave on that date no matter what. It is important to stay until the job is done... and if things happen to keep us from doing what we want by the time we outlined, then we go to Plan B, Plan C. In fact, it’s having goals and timetables is the way we know it’s time to Plan B, Plan C, Plan Z.
Granted, some in the Senate (as well as Murtha) want us out of Iraq right now, regardless of where things stand. Heck, I wanted us out a long time ago (for me, going in to get rid of Hussein and to make sure there were no WMDs was OK, sticking around to build their country is not such a good idea). But the fact that some of those voting for this resolution feel that way is not a sufficient reason to condemn the whole thing... any more than it is right to condemn Bush because some of the people who voted for him are racists.
As for the 4 minutes of debate, notwithstanding the point that the resolution has no force behind it, how much time should be spent on something that is obviously in need of being done?
As a final point (at least until my rebuttal to the rebuttals I’ll likely get) let me say that not declaring ahead of time the circumstances that will allow us to leave is precisely what will allow the terrorists to claim they’ve driven us out when we do leave. Let me explain: there’s no way Bush can get on TV right now and declare the job done and that he’s bringing the troops home without everybody claiming he lost his nerve. It is only by announcing, in specifics, what he wants to do, will he ever be able to announce at a later date that our mission is complete and that he is justifiably bringing the troops home. Only then could Bush, and the American people, point to what we have done and rightly claim that we weren’t driven out, we did what we set out to do. But Bush hasn’t made it clear what he wants to do, certainly not clear enough. He rambles about ’staying the course’ and ’honoring the memory of those who have died’. I just wish he would give some details on just what ’staying the course’ means... otherwise, I’m afraid it will mean ’stay in Iraq forever’.
Here’s two simple reasons for not publishing specific goals and timetables.
Tactically its a boon to your opponent. Imagine someone wants to break into your house. How much more confident and secure in his attempt if you knew your schedule and where you will be for certain.
Politically you’re setting yourself for failure. Democrats should know this. Bush said he would get Bin Laden. Effectively Bin Laden is shutdown and Al Queda in Afghanistan is shutdown. Bin Laden is essentially dead. But since he can still make the occassional video from some hole somewhere Democrats & AQ and taunt George Bush about it. In fact, AQ in Afghanistan’s primary purpose is to keep Bin Laden out of US hands. Everything else is secondary.
If we set detailed public goals, there will be enough that AQ can cause to technically fail, we lose.
Only by announcing our goals will we be able to say to the Iraqis, the terrorists, the world at large and to America - when we accomplish those goals - that we have done what we set out to do and are thus justified in leaving.
Take for example the goal of cutting down on the extent of insurgent attacks. Do we plan on sticking around until there are no more such attacks? Or until they are few and far between? Or some other benchmark? If Bush opts for one of the latter - and doesn’t announce it - then he will be portrayed as weak if he pulls out troops while there are still attacks going on.
And I don’t buy the the claim that announcing our goals only gives our enemy an advantage. They know what we’re trying to do. They know we’re trying to train police, bring the electricity back on line and so on. We don’t have to disclose tactics.
Oh gosh we all know that MccAin isn’t a REAL Republican, right? isn’t that the official party position? When we have doubts just repeat it about 20 or 30 times then tell yourself President Bush is above reproach and NEVER makes a mistake (well, maybe one: Meirs)then take breath deep 10 times...it’ll be alright.
Charles, what are you going on about? Just because McCain accidentally makes sense has no bearing on the multitudinous ways in which I am unhappy with Bush, and I suspect that true for a great many republicans too.
