|
This Boston Globe article says everything that needs to be known about how serious Democrats are about winning in Iraq. That is, they aren't the least bit serious. Here's what I'm basing that opinion on:
Three Massachusetts congressmen called for a United Nations security force to replace American troops in Iraq as part of a phased plan for withdrawing US soldiers after a new president takes office in January.
Yesterday's proposal, sponsored by Representatives James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt, calls for an end to ongoing talks between the United States and Iraq on a long-term security agreement. Instead, according to the proposal, US authorities should immediately start negotiations with the UN on a mandate to govern the "internationalization of responsibility for aid and support to Iraq."
Reps. Tierney, McGovern and Delahunt are idiots for proposing such a plan. The U.N. can't focus on killing al-Qa'ida like our troops are currently doing. The U.N. won't take sides like U.S. troops are taking sides against anyone plotting against the sovereign Iraqi government. They can't involve themselves in demolishing malicious militias like those funded by Iran.
While it's true that Iraqi security forces now control every major citiy in Iraq, it's equally true that the U.S. military is still needed to wipe out the last of al-Qa'ida's terrorists and the last of Sadr's militias.
Here's what Rep. McGovern sees happening:
The current UN mandate, under which American forces legally operate in the country, expires on Dec. 31. The US and Iraqi governments have no plans to seek its renewal and are drawing up a bilateral agreement that could keep US forces in the country indefinitely.
McGovern, a Democrat from Worcester, said such an agreement "will lead to a US commitment to endless war." Congress, he said, must help the next president chart an alternative.
"For those of us who opposed the war, it is not enough to say the war was a mistake and we should immediately withdraw," McGovern told reporters in a conference call by the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, a Cambridge-based independent research center that helped draft the report. "Every time we try to bring up the issue of withdrawal, the [Bush] administration shouts 'bloodbath.' They make it seem as if there is no choice but to stay. The fact is there are alternatives."
Talk about hyperbole. A sovereign government asks another sovereign government's forces to clean out the last of the bad guys means neverending war? Rep. McGovern is an idiot for thinking that. Rep. McGovern is an even bigger idiot for thinking that we're losing. Col. Peters skillfully explained that we're clobbering the bad guys in Iraq:
I think it's easy to get wrapped up with details but this isn't one or two little things going right. for the last eighteen months, the positive trendlines have been overwhelmingly positive. The Iraqi military has been doing a remarkably good job. Even last year, the Iraqi parliament passed more pieces of major legislation than the U.S. Congress. Our troops can now focus on killing the remnants of al-Qaeda, killing the key Shia militia leaders and Iranian special groups. Every major city in Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqi security forces, backed by the U.S. forces. And on top of all this, Geraldo, al-Qaeda suffered a collosal strategic defeat by declaring Iraq their central front, then having Sunni Arabs turn on them by the millions. al-Qaeda is a broken organization, not defanged entirely, but broken. These are big stories and I can tell you, Geraldo, that at the New York Post, that we found that people do want to hear positive things about our troops. They do want the news from Iraq and the last thing I'll say of this is that I'll say of this is that if in the Year of Our Lord 2014, that if Iraq is a perfect, peaceful democracy, better than Iowa, the NY Times will run an article above the fold, shoplifter arrested in Sadr City, surge failed.
What's the color of the sun in Rep. McGovern's world? Based on his answers, it can't be the same color as our sun. He's just too far gone to be from this solar system.
While Col. Peters is talking about the significant achievements in Iraq, Rep. McGovern is talking like it's 2004, which is typical for Democrats. They have a penchant for talking down to people.
Here's one of the trio's 'alternatives':
Those alternatives include normalizing relations with neighboring Syria and seeking a rapprochement with Iran, two nations that have been blamed for fomenting some of the civil strife within Iraq, according to the 30-page report. The plan also calls for "vigorous diplomatic steps" to stop the flow of arms into the country.
According to dictionary.com, here's rapprochement's definition:
an establishment or reestablishment of harmonious relations
Why on God's green earth would we seen to establish "harmonious relations" with a terrorist nation that's building nuclear weapons? What possible benefit would we get from such a policy? Is there a benefit in pursuing such a policy?
These Three Stooges need to be highlighted for holding the views that Democrats typically hold. The sole exception to that policy is Joe Lieberman. Isn't it iteresting that the Nutroots love idiots like Reps. Tierney, Delahunt and McGovern but hate Sen. Lieberman?
Don't think that that's coincidental. After all, the Nutroots love defeat.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
