Monday, December 24, 2007

Revisit 2005:Bush war in Iraq being fought as if Kerry won Election

As news of the success of the Surge is becoming conventional wisdom, I am reprinting what I wrote in 2005. This shows that we need a more vibrant democracy where people in both parties truly advocate what they think is right irrespective of political parties:

The Iraq War is a prime example why both parties need independent and diverse thinkers. It is not in the best interest of our country to have the two major political parties so ideologically pristine. Though there may be certain maverick individuals such as a Lieberman for the Democrats or a McCain or Hagel for the Republicans; there aren't any serious factions within the parties that promote principles over the party line. The detrimental effect of this is evident concerning our so-called "War on Terror". Though the Bush administration periodically has talked a tough and aggressive strategy, they have often failed. Their lack of diplomatic success has been chronicled and exposed clearly by those on the left. But equally troubling has been our inability to follow through on our stern rhetoric. We have threatened Bin Laden's capture dead or alive, we have warned of "Shock and Awe" in the early days of the military campaign. We have elevated our troop levels and repeatedly have signaled a determination to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Yet, we still are in a weak position there and world-wide in many places because of political correctness, and bad political judgement. We haven't been tough enough in many cases. There have been terrorist clerics such as Al Sadr who have negotiated his way out of sure defeat and/or death. We have tried to appease people and groups who aren't clearly with us, so according to the President, they must be "with the terrorists". Were there a President Gore or President Kerry, first we wouldn't be in this war, but assuming we were, they would probably have fought it similarly wrong. This being due to the propensity to listen to peace activists, and human rights types who are clearly out of their discipline when talking of war and national security. However the Right would be using facts, logic, and time-tested ideas to correctly criticize and encourage a better war plan and execution. In addition the military leadership would not be so loyal to a Democrat. Our country, troops, and future are being penalized because Conservatives won't truly criticize their own and put the nation ahead of politics, and Democrats only criticize when it's in their interests, which won't be from a hawkish position. Now that we're in a war, we need to develop a plan to win forcefully as quickly as possible. We need to assume the burden of bad press reports, and millions of people believing the worse of our intentions. Ultimately the path toward victory and the world understanding our overall goodness is success and proof of a positive agenda. Even then, there will be those searching for the downside. Right now, we have the Bush administration trying to appease left wing governments, left-leaning press members, and the world elite by being culturally sensitive, working within certain constraints, and in general not aggressively rooting out the terrorists and their protectors in Iraq. Perhaps this route has re-elected Bush, Blair, and others, but it is not in our nation's best interest. This is not a conincidence. Oh, how I wish the President was really a person who "said what he means, means what he say" because he's a "straight shooter". The list of statements no longer referred to nor claimed by the President is growing. More innocent people will be harmed if we continue a weak war in Iraq, than if we got serious, cleaned the place out, and came home.If President Bush won't commit our troops to win, pay the the UN to rebuild, and leave. We should just leave now, without further damage to our troops and prestige.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

No comments: