House Democrats’ New Strategy: Slow Bleed
Iraq is not Las Vegas… What happens there is not going to stay there. If we lose terrorists will be emboldened and expand their exports of extremist fanaticism and terror. If we win we will have established a representative government that protects the basic human rights of its citizens, and offer a bit of hope to the millions of people oppressed in the despotic regimes of the region.
It doesn’t matter what anyone’s point of view on the justification of this war is; the bottom line is that we are at war. We are there and nothing anyone can do can change that fact. Congress debated and voted in 2002 to authorize the President to utilize our Military to force Iraq into compliance with a multitude of UN Resolutions, oust one of the most brutal dictatorial regimes the world has ever seen, and defend the national security of the United States. Once the decision was made to go to war the debate and discussion ended. From that moment on the only two choices on the table were victory or defeat. Make no mistake, withdrawing our forces before victory is achieved is a defeat.
If America leaves Iraq before our mission there is complete whether you agree with that mission or not, we will have handed the Islamists a far more significant victory than even the bloody attack of September 11th. It would validate their most powerful recruiting tool; that weak Americans will inevitably be defeated by Jihad, and the future belongs to a despotism based on Islamic Tyranny and radicalized Islam. The effects on our Allies would be even worse especially those who are themselves under threat from Islamic Fundamentalists. How many would conclude that appeasing the terrorists would be their best hope of survival?
The finger pointing by politicians on both sides currently being played out in the media may gain a few political points in the polls, but it also has a negative effect on what we need to do to win this war. It is a sad state of our political affairs when short term political gains are ahead of national security on the priority list of some of our elected officials. Politicians on both sides are guilty of this and they all should be ashamed.
Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs.
They will introduce riders onto bills to prevent certain units from deploying. They will try to limit the President’s constitutional power to determine the length and number of deployments. They will attempt to keep the Pentagon from replacing troops who rotate out of Iraq. They may even try to limit how our troops operate by, for example, prohibiting our armed forces from creating and operating bases in Iraq.
Cut N Run is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi ‘slow-bleed’ plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.