Saturday, September 15, 2007

Defeat at any Price?

The author of the above link raises a very interesting question. Do the Democrats want us to lose in Iraq, no matter what?

To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start.

To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn't, and everyone knew it wasn't? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams.


That is a scary proposition. But as is so often said, the Democrats support the troops by wanting to bring them home. A noble sentiment, but is it enough? Again, from the article:

"Bring our troops home," says Harry Reid, and adds the incantation "responsibly"--which magically protects him from all charges of irresponsibility. ("Abolish the Constitution and sink the Navy--responsibly!") When MoveOn held a candlelight vigil over the summer to support Senate Democrats, the symbolism was plain. We light candles to remember the dead.

But if we only remember the dead and not the cause for which they died, we dishonor and make nonsense of the noblest of all sacrifices. And we mock a president who asked that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." That is the issue when Americans die in combat. Do we finish the mission and invest their deaths with meaning? Or do we shrug them off, inscribe their names on some sepulchral black wall in a ditch, and walk away?


I realize that it is hard for most people to understand, that soldiers do not want to die, but if they do, they want their death to have a meaning. In today's world, so few people alive live lives with meaning. These soldiers recognize that there is a greater good: Their fellow soldiers and their nation.

So, let's conduct a thought experiment, shall we? Just suppose that the war could be won. (I know, most are saying that this is an impossibility, but work with me here). Okay, if the war could be won, would the Democrats want to win it?

If the answer is no, that is very telling, and there is no further need to discuss it.

On the other hand, if the Democrats did want to win the war, now we have to ask the question - what would it take to win? And if it's resources, time, money or more troops, why don't we want to do whatever it takes to win?

1 comment:

MT Pundit said...

You ask a very good question, Why won't we do what it takes to win? I believe the answer to be, that the Democrats are just so desperate for power that they will not invest in winning a war supported by Republicans.

Take Mogadishu, Liberals and Democrats called for US involvement and Republicans said it was none of our business. Once American blood was in play, Republicans (by in large) supported the effort. Then on that fateful day in 1993 known as black hawk down, 18 American Army Rangers and Special Operators died, and the Democrats pulled out. This was a liberal humanitarian effort supported by the democrats until, Republican rallied behind our men in uniform.