DEMOCRATS: A DISLOYAL MAJORITY??
Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 06:26AM by Peter Bearse Ph.D.
The votes on Iraq by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and other politicians that make up the new Democratic majority in the Congress represent a mirror image of the bad qualities that they use to splat-paint President Bush -- ignorance, arrogance and unconstitutionality. So the Iraq war was unconstitutional and based on poor intelligence! -- Democrats were not elected to replay the tape of an old, bad movie but to set a new course. Lacking such a strategy and contrary to the Constitution, they try to play Commander-in-Chief and micro-manage foreign policy. They foolishly ignore new and better intelligence. They arrogantly presume to misread and judge the President’s intentions, as if they are still driven by the same “anti-Bush” theme that got them elected in ‘06.
One can’t help but recall the “loyal opposition” that helps a democratic system to work. Democrats have gone from one extreme to the other. Most of them were so “loyal,” as a largely unquestioning minority from ’03-‘05, they followed the President like lemmings over a cliff, voting to hand him power, a blank check, to execute a “war of choice.” Now they can’t even provide any benefit of doubt as they act like a disloyal majority. Mean-while, there’s room for doubt, lots of it. Consider some key questions:
* Does the President’s new, “Petraeus” strategy embrace learning from experience? [YES, but Democrats don’t even allow the question, let alone the possibility that the President is capable of learning anything}
* Is the new strategy the right one even though arrived at belatedly? [YES, for many reasons rooted in fact and history, but Democrats ignore the possibility. They’re not prepared to talk “strategy,” lacking any but a defeatist idea of what it might be.]
* How can we hand responsibility for Iraq to Iraqis without appearing to withdraw in defeat with our tail (and no onions) between our legs? [As a majority, Democrats now have prime responsibility to face the consequences of our being in Iraq, but do they not offer defeatist answers to this key question?]
The fact of the matter is that we have not been defeated in Iraq -- nor can we be -- unless we choose to defeat ourselves through knee-jerk, defeatist overreactions to media coverage. We have constructed several massive military bases in Iraq. There they will remain for years to come until the country stabilizes with some form of democratic government in place. We can move U.S. Army and National Guard troops out of harm’s way. We can adopt a patient, selective, unpredictable “shock and awe” strategy.
Al Queda-in-Iraq’s only hope is to take power locally in some Iraqi cities and towns. There is no way they can take over the whole country. If the Petraeus strategy fails or its successes are spotty, let us withdraw to our bases and offshore floating fortresses in the Persian Gulf. Let it be known throughout Iraq that Islamist-fascist control of any locality will subject that place to massive assault by U.S. Marines and Special Forces – at times and places of our choosing. Nationally, we can continue to support the Iraqi national government with military and non-military foreign aid – if they want our help and can honor performance benchmarks for its use.
Democrats have consistently refused to assume responsibility for what may happen in Iraq from this point forward, even though some students of the Middle East, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans point to potentially “disastrous” consequences if defeatist Democratic policies are followed. Unfortunately, as their recent votes reveal, Rep. Shea-Porter and most other members of the new majority are disloyal legislators, representing polls and political opportunism at the country’s expense.
PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., Fremont, 895-8487, International Consulting Economist who expects to soon return to Iraq to help provide non-military, development assistance. 4/28/07.
Reader Comments (14)
I'm confused by your back to back jarringly contradictory guest blogs.
Were you being sarcastic with you plea to bring the troops home?
What gives here?
He has written two forward looking blogs on Iraq. They may seem contradictory but I don't think they are. I think it would probably take a few more guest blogs to flesh out all the complexities of where we are in Iraq.
Mr. Pearse, I appreciate both of your guest blogs and ask you to please feel free to write some more on the subject of Iraq. You have thought about the issue and have opinions about how to move forward that all of us should be considering.
In that regard you definitely surpass our congressional delegation.
Thanks.
I just want you to know that wasn't being sarcastic. I can't quite reconcile the two editorials.
Second, I'd like to see more from "Sue."
Third, on the matter of seeming "contradic-tions, consider the following.The keyword is "responsibility."
> The fact that we should not have started the Iraq war does not detract from our res-ponsibility to face up to its consequences; rather, the opposite.
> If not "disloyal," Democratic initiatives to end the war are irresponsible because they amount to little more than political posturing in a situation where political (mis)management of the war has been a problem from the beginning. Why, for example, cannot Democrats interact seriously with the President over the new "surge" strategy? Are they afraid it might work? Can't they allow for the possibility that the surge may be part of a disengagement or redeployment strategy?
> It is irresponsible if not "disloyal" to play a political card that is un-questionably "defeatist" in tenor & thrust.
> It is irresponsible and, indeed, contradictory, to say that one honors the troops but dishonors what they believe they are fighting for.
Perhaps we can all agree that there are too many questions & too few answers on Iraq. Should we not recall the experience of Viet-nam? and try to organize a "teach-in"?
Let's at least try to learn from each other as well as history & experience. PETER
I'm asking about this: Isn't this the Democrats position that you criticise in your very next piece?
IRAQ: DECLARE VICTORY, BRING SOLDIERS HOME
by Peter Bearse Ph.D
It’s time to declare victory, bring soldiers home and help Iraq to help itself.
First, negate the naysayers and defeat the defeatists. The United States hasn’t “lost” or been defeated in Iraq. Note the highlights of what we have accomplished:
Can you clear this up?
thank you
It's pretty clear to me...I am not sure you read it carefully enough. If you would like some help I can try to walk you through it.
Just trying to be helpful...
Peter is the author. I don't like other people speaking for me when I write and I would imagine Peter will speak for himself.
Let's see what he has to say for now
You raise some interesting questions. Here are some answers.
1.Why, for example, cannot Democrats interact seriously with the President over the new "surge" strategy?
They are interacting responsibly. They are saying “No” with a loud voice. This is not an unreasonable position to take. If my opponent wants to do something that I believe is a mistake, the irresponsible thing to do is go along with him. Constitutionally, only Congress has the responsibility for starting and ending wars, and funding them. They are doing this. It is remarkable to me that Bush would risk the troops lives by vetoing a bill to fund them for the Congressionally-mandated withdrawal.
2.Are they afraid it [the surge] might work?
No, they are afraid that it won’t work, and by the time the president admits it, or more realistically the next president admits it, we will have suffered another 1000 dead, our military will be weaker, and our position in the world will be worse.
3.Can't they allow for the possibility that the surge may be part of a disengagement or redeployment strategy?
The solution in Iraq must be political, and be done by the Iraqis, not military and done by the Americans. The administration has said that there is no “Plan B”. The surge is not part of something bigger. Everything that we know about this administration is that they run this government based on political considerations- how will it look to the voters back home. As a practical matter, if Bush has his way, we will start the withdrawal next fall, just in time for the elections.
4.It is irresponsible if not "disloyal" to play a political card that is un-questionably "defeatist" in tenor & thrust.
Was Reagan disloyal when he pulled the marines out of Lebanon? Was Clinton disloyal when he pulled our troops out of Somalia? Was Bush I disloyal when he pulled our troops out of Iraq in 1991? Of course not. We have been occupying Iraq for 4 years, and for 4 years the situation had deteriorated. Could there be a connection between these two statements, in your mind?
5. It is irresponsible and, indeed, contradictory, to say that one honors the troops but dishonors what they believe they are fighting for.
What precisely do you think the troops think we are fighting for in Iraq? Stopping WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists? Showing Saddam he can’t ignore the US? Democracy? Freedom? Oil? To avoid a civil war? To stop the civil war from getting worse? To keep “them” from following us back home?
Changing your nickname really doesn't do much to change your tired arguments, does it.