Getting Away with Murder. . .
Vol: 65 Issue: 23 Friday, February 23, 2007
The Left is really building momentum in its continuing effort to sacrifice American troops on the altar of political correctness as a means of wresting the White House out of Republican hands.
Nevada Senator Harry Reid is preparing a bill aimed at revoking the authorization granted the White House in 2002 for war in Iraq.
If successful, the measure will hamstring US forces now in harm’s way by restricting US troops to only fighting al-Qaeda terrorists. Let me say that again for emphasis. Under Harry Reid’s plan, US forces will not be allowed to fight back unless the targets are confirmed as al-Qaeda fighters.
If American forces are attacked by Iraqi insurgents not connected with al-Qaeda, they will not be permitted to fight back. Instead, they will have to rely on Iraqi troops for force protection.
No doubt Senator Reid believes he’s come up with the perfect prescription for tying President Bush’s hands. Restricting US forces to only engaging al-Qaeda fighters will made the US position in Iraq untenable and unsustainable.
When the Iraqi insurgents realize that they can shoot US troops with impunity, knowing that any retaliation will come from the ineffective, ill-trained and often sympathetic Iraqi ground forces, the attacks will escalate exponentially.
And without US air support, they needn’t worry about massing ground troops for major attacks. US troops would be sitting ducks, and US casualties would soon reach unsustainable numbers. The White House will be forced to declare defeat and withdraw US troops from harm’s way.
The Democrats will easily defeat the Republicans in the 2008 elections — after all, it will be the Republicans who lost a war that should have been a cakewalk.
It is a tried and true tactic. Although the Vietnam War was started by Democratic President John Kennedy and continued by Lyndon Johnson, America didn’t start winning until Richard Nixon lifted the restrictions on the US military rules of engagement.
Once the US started to win, the Democrats realized that victory would keep the White House in Republican hands. They turned against the war (that they had started) and demanded new restrictions on the military in the field.
The rest, as they say, was history. Unable to make progress, US military commanders complained they could not win, Congress blamed the White House for the defeat, and the next election cycle put Jimmy Carter in the White House.
It worked in Vietnam, and the Democrats reason that it will work in Iraq. The trick is to make it look like it is not their fault.
In addition to imposing impossible rules of engagement (how will US troops know that the bullets coming at them are coming from al-Qaeda and not Iraqi insurgents) Reid plans to impose strict new rules on training and readiness standards before new troops can be deployed.
Also, they plan to impose new deployment restrictions. US forces will only be allowed to serve a maximum of one year before being rotated back to the States. Once rotated back, they cannot be returned to combat for another year.
Who would want to vote against that? It’s a brilliant plan, even if it is hardly original.
The same restrictions were imposed in Vietnam. US forces were restricted to a thirteen month tour of duty then, with a similar restriction of one year between tours.
That guaranteed that the most experienced and battle-hardened troops were back in the States and that US commanders had a steady supply of green troops to work with.
It was a well-known adage among the Vietnam grunts that if you survived your first month in combat, your odds of surviving your tour of duty went up exponentially. It was the troops rotating in who made most of the mistakes and suffered the highest casualty rates.
The Democrats won the White House by increasing the US body count in the Vietnam War. And Harry Reid thinks that it will work again in Iraq.
If it means sacrificing the lives of more Americans in Iraq to make the plan work, well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, as the saying goes.
Reid modeled his plan after the British model that forced Prime Minister Tony Blair to admit defeat and announce a timetable for a British withdrawal from Iraq.
The New York Times crowed in an editorial entitled, “Britain Cuts It’s Losses”:
“Spin it any way you like, Prime Minister Tony Blair s announcement that Britain will be withdrawing up to 1,600 of its 7,100 remaining troops in Iraq can t be welcome military or political news for President Bush. . . . The British announcement has already served as the catalyst for other departures.”
(In reading the editorial, one gets the impression that the Times’ editors are celebrating the British departure as a sign of victory for ‘their’ side)
“Denmark, with 460 troops under British command, announced yesterday that it would leave by August. With the Pentagon already straining to find enough soldiers for Iraq, a troop drawdown by its most militarily capable ally can only add to the strain and to the clamor for bringing American forces home as well.”
The operative word here is contained in the editorial’s headline. That word is “losses”. The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media have staked their credibility on — and therefore have a vested interest in — an American loss in Iraq, which they see as a Republican loss in ’08.
Now that the British have conceded defeat, the ‘coalition of the willing’ is falling apart, leaving George Bush and the Republicans alone and without cover.
Senator Reid wasted no time congratulating the British on their defeat:
“”By announcing its decision to redeploy troops from Iraq, the British Government has acknowledged a reality that President Bush still stubbornly refuses to accept. There can be no purely military solution in Iraq.”
Where does one rank such a statement by the top-ranking member of the United States Senate on the weirdness scale?
“Congratulations on losing. We think that is great news. We hope to join you in your military defeat as quickly as possible.”
Reid’s statement went on to say, “Today’s news is further evidence that the Bush plan to escalate the war is misguided, and demonstrates once again why it was strongly rejected by bipartisan majorities of the House and Senate.”
To al-Qaeda and the Iraqi ‘insurgency’ (the preferred name for the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq) Reid’s message was:
“Our president is an idiot who doesn’t understand that you’ve already won. But we, the clear thinking American people, salute you. Hang in there.”
It is critically important to understand that the only way the Democrats can win in ’08 is if the US loses the war in Iraq. The only way the US can lose the war in Iraq is if American losses are too high to be sustainable.
THAT is the end-game for the Democrats. Increase American losses in the field. The Reid plan is nothing short of an effort to disarm US forces and wait until enough of them get killed to make an admission of defeat the only option.
It’s beyond politics. It’s beyond treason. From the perspective of the troops in the field, the Reid plan is nothing short of murder.