Post #37

Subject: Dyin’ for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.

Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore. And the Iraqi elections were another chance to declare “victory.”

Our civilian leadership has lost the peace. Military success has been squandered. Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?

As Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show Monday, said:

“Now, I think that our troops can certainly point to all of that. We have had, however, many problems doing what the president wanted, which was really to “bring democracy” and get people who have been warring with each other forever to come together.

“I think you have someone like Joe Biden, who is about to be chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, saying, look, let‘s deal with reality. And I think there is one crackpot view, if I might use your word, and that crackpot view is to keep on doing what we are doing.

“… I don‘t think “losing” and “winning” are the operative words. I think, what should our policy be to resolve this situation?” And place us on the “winning” side of the War on Terror. If Bush really wanted to win the War on Terror, he would have installed an ally and not leave it up to the Iraqis to elect an ally.

As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”

“Democrats are probably reading the country right. Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.

“But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.

“While our leaders never thought through the probable result of invading an Arab nation that had not attacked us, we had best think through the probable results of a pullout in 2007.

“We are being told that by giving the Iraqis a deadline, after which we start to withdraw, we will stiffen their spines to take up greater responsibility for their own country. But there is as great or greater a likelihood that a U.S. pullout will break their morale and spirit, that the Iraqi government and army, seeing Americans heading for the exit ramp, will collapse before an energized enemy, and Shias, Sunnis and Kurds will scramble for security and survival among their own. … [A] collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States -- emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world -- is a real possibility.”

So? I guess I’m too selfish, but how does that affect me? I’ve got a nephew who turns 18 next year. Should I support “Stay the Course?”

As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , also said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”

“Americans are not driven by some ideological vocation to reform mankind. We do not have the patience or perseverance of great imperial peoples. If an issue is not seen as vital to our own liberty and security, we will not fight long for some abstraction like democracy, self-determination or human rights.”

Exactly. I’m looking out for #1. me. I don’t want to see a body bag with my nephew’s name on it – for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.