Instead of trying to figure out how to keep more soldiers from getting killed, wounded, stop-lossed, and separated from their family, Republicans rammed through some votes on the Hill with the idea of forcing Democrats to support the war, or appear as if they didn't support the troops. Democrats, as usual, did nothing much to make them look like a viable alternative.
The House Resolution says we will prevail and we won't leave
- We will win: "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror..."
- Saddam was helping terrorists: "Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions..."
- The mission is a happy, safe Iraq: "Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors..."
- No withdrawal schedule to be set: "... declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq..."
- We (the US) will win no matter what: "... declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq..."
Why is this such a political jerk around? Because read the words above... It focuses on prevailing, as if wanting to and doing it is possible just by will alone (see the Vietnam War). To that effect, the resolution sounds like a self-affirming, pump you up speech before the big game. And those speeches mean little when the teams hit the field.
In addition, the Resolution states the same thing the President has -- namely that the US won't give up until we "prevail" and that we will see through the "completion of this mission." If everyone would be just honest for a minute, what's the chance of "a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq" in the next couple of years? Sovereign, sure. Free is a tough one to define and audit. Secure is a long way off -- just read accounts of the soldiers in the field. And united -- will that happen in the next 25 years with Shia, Sunni, Kurds, and others killing each other or trying to disadvantage each other? Not likely at all, or at least by US standards.
The Senate forced a vote on withdrawal the day before
With a public support boost from the confirmed killing of top Iraqi terrorist and leader of al-Qaida, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Republicans rushed to get the Democrats on the record for voting on the Iraq War. This strategy is aimed at the Fall Congressional elections, which the Republicans are hoping to win enough of to retain control of Congress. If not, the Democrats will gain committee control of the House or Senate and will be able to open investigations into topics, such as the OIF's initial justification, the competency of the OIF after-battle plan, the Plame identity leak, and the warrantless tapping of US citizen communications.
The Senate's Thursday vote was on an amendment titled, "To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit." The vote was to table this effort, effectively saying that there will be no immediate withdrawal. The tally was 93-6 in favor of tabling it.
Making a complex issue black and white, yeah or nay
Criticizing the Congress for its two recent Iraq votes seems to point all blame at the Republicans, and surely they deserve a heaping portion as they continue to disrespect the troops, their families, and the rest of America by creating false choices between only victory or defeat; by claiming we area at war while never having declared war; and by providing no benchmarks to gauge when or how victory can be achieved.
But Democrats deserve almost as much scorn. They seem more worried about not losing the Fall mid-term elections than they do standing up for principles. How pathetic is it when the Democratic Party, told that a fast ball is coming down the center of the plate, chooses not to swing lest they get out?
In the end, both parties are failing the US and the world at large. Selfless service in Congress is a joke, despite what we teach our kids. Republican or Democrat -- they are all about getting power and keeping it. Congress loves to honor the troops, yet Congressmen are not willing to jump on any political grenade and sacrifice themselves for the sake of the country or soldiers. There is no honor on the Hill. And that's a shame, since there is so much dedication, devotion, and risking taking by our troops facing daily dangers and separated from their families for much longer than many were led to beleive.
Hopefully, either some current Senators or Representatives will finally get it, and do what is right for the country, or a new bread of jaded, pissed off Americans flying the political colors of a third-party and espousing an idealistic, yet realistic, common sense philosophy will come to the fore. And there is no doubt that a portion of that third-party flag should be in the latest digital camouflage pattern of our armed forces, as they are bearing the brunt of fallout from the actions from our spineless, self-centered officials.
Let's hope -- and support -- that new breed. Republicans and Democrats have proven time and again they are bad for America and Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment