March 08, 2007

Left Behind

As House Democrats trumpet the release of their "son of 'Slow Bleed'" legislation to evict American forces from the Iraq War, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis was credited with an interesting set of pull quotes in one too-telling Associated Press paragraph:

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the proposal would bring an "orderly and responsible close" to American participation in what he called an Iraqi "civil war."

Like the larger Democrat-led effort to lose the war, this statement avoids mentioning—purposefully, in my estimation—that the proposed election-time retreat would end just American involvement in the war. The Democrats refuse to embrace the consequences of such a retreat.

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq's Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being "ethnically cleansed," while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

A repeat of events like the Srebrenica massacre are possible in Iraq's future if Democrats have their way.

Democrats, of course, know this, but simply seem to find political games in America far more important than the regional destabilization and projected increase in civilian deaths their plan for defeat would bring.

Democrats claim to care about our troops, which they do, when it’s politically convenient and they’re fresh out of spit.

Looking Out

Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians.

Iraqi children won't send out important action alerts over frappacinos, or fund presidential campaigns in either America. It isn't their grandchildren that will suffer and die if we leave before the job is done.

The Democrats won't mention the cost of pandering to their radical base.

Apparently the one thing too shameful to discuss is the legacy they would leave behind.

Update: Pretty good analysis, Mr Dorkage:

People here will tell you they are mostly afraid of one thing-that we will leave soon, like we have since Vietnam, Somalia, etc., and that they will then be at the mercy of the terrorists who seep in from Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Saudia Arabia. A self-fulfilling circle, helped out vastly by our 'anti-war' citizens back home, who ironically enable wars as this by forcing constant US retreats through our political process. People here - real people, not 'Jamil Husseins' - want us here to give them time to reform their society.

I speculate this is one of the reasons I observed such high morale in our soldiers here. They are wanted here, unlike, say, in San Francisco. But, I digress.

Update: Democrat plan is "failure at any cost." Ouch.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 8, 2007 12:49 PM

The troops themselves have a dim view of Iraq:

65% of Iraqis favored an immediate pullout as of last September:

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 8, 2007 01:01 PM

"Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians."

Because they can't vote here.

Posted by: TexasRainmaker at March 8, 2007 01:05 PM

Lex, do you actually read the links you provide to see if say if they support what you contend?

The Seattle Times article (learn some basic HTML, would you?) does not say anything about the troops having a "dim view of Iraq," at all. What is does say is that they aren't happy with how Bush is handling the war.

If you actually talked to some soldiers instead of relying on the media to decide your news for you, you would find out that many of those unhappy with Bush are unahppy becuase Bush is not letting them be agressive enough in their ROE.

You'll also note that about half the soldiers surveyed felt we needed to increase troop strength, and only 13% were in favor of having no military presence (you know, the "defeat and retreat" Democrat plan).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 8, 2007 01:25 PM

CY: "Lex, do you actually read the links you provide to see if say if they support what you contend?"

I contended, "The troops themselves have a dim view of Iraq", and the title of the article I linked to is in fact "Poll of military finds dimmer view of Iraq war". Is that clear enough?

Actually this is the poll I was originally searching for:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year,"

If the soldiers want to come home, and the Iraqis want us to leave, we ought to leave.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 8, 2007 01:57 PM

Lex, I don't honestly know whether to laugh, or cry. Your defense of an article that doesn't support what you claim it said, is that the headline writer said what you agree with? Why, I guess we can just disregard the content or the context, and focus on headlines written by poorly paid and harried staffers from now on.

Here's a little free advice, Lex: the newspapers don't provide you with the full story, and many news accounts are only loosely based on facts. If you want to know what American soldiers and Iraqi civilains think, ask American and Iraqi civilians.

Don't hire a polling company (especially one as biased as Zogby) to craft a carefully worded poll, to ask questions purposefully designed to guide the respondants answers. Don't take those designed and guided answers to a reporter with an agenda, who will further craft and edit those responses to what the reporter thinks their story should say. If you'd read your own sources, you'd see that your Zogby claim (An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year") is in almost direct conflict with your Seattle-I-agree-with-the-headline-but-not-the-content story, where only 13% think we should exit. Why do I even bother, when you do such a great job debunking yourself?

IF you want to know what is going on: Talk to the soldiers. Listen to the civilains.

Michael Yon wrote just a few days ago about how high morale was among our soldiers. He should know. He lives, sleeps, bleeds, and even on rare occasions fights beside our soldiers in Iraq, something Zogby has never done.

Pat Dollard, Chris Muir, Michelle Malkin, Bryan Preston, Brian Williams of NBC News, Michael Fumento, Bill Roggio, and virtually every one else who has actually taken the time to step out of the Green Zone in teh last few months have reported much the same thing. The soldiers and airmen I've talked to in person and online also want to complete the mission.

You can rely on polls Lex, or you can actually listen to the people the polls claim to represent.

That dispensed with, I note you haven't even attempted to challenge that Democrat's plan to abandon Iraq's civilains. You seem much more comfortable changing the subject than facing the reality of what a retreat really means for the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 8, 2007 02:47 PM

CY: You are taking Michelle Malkin and her ilk's word over Zogby and Seattle Times. IMO you are hearing what you want to hear, and calling everything else bias.

The Seattle Times headline is accurate. The troops poll much less enthusiastic about Iraq than they did previously. That is a dimming of expectations all right.

"I note you haven't even attempted to challenge that Democrat's plan to abandon Iraq's civilains."

I said, "65% of Iraqis favored an immediate pullout as of last September" and included a link. If the Iraqis want us to leave, then we don't owe it to them to stay.

The 13% you referred to in the Seattle Times poll said we should have no troops there right now, the 72% from Zogby said we should leave within a year. Those aren't necessarily contradictory.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 8, 2007 03:09 PM

Lex, I'm citing people who have spent time on the ground with the troops in Iraq, some in many areas of Iraq, over extended lengths of time, versus stateside bureau reporters and pollsters that have never been to Iraq, and yet you have the gall to refer to them as "ilk?" That says tons more about you and what you are willing to buy to support your own preconcieved notions than it does about them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 8, 2007 03:31 PM

Lex, you're still avoiding the point:

Should we leave Iraq at this point, it becomes a killing field. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, you name it, they'll all be fighting over the scraps.

The total casualties will be measured in the *millions*. The entire region may come apart, with Israel, the Gulf oil states, Afghanistan and Pakistan joining in because of "regional security interests." The Democrats know that this will happen, but their response is to do it anyway because it politically benefits them in the short term.

I cannot put it any more succinctly than this: if we leave Iraq now, millions will die.

Posted by: Jared at March 8, 2007 03:47 PM

CY: I can give you plenty of names of people who went to Iraq and wrote the opposite of what the folks you cited wrote. Steve Fainaru is one off the top of my head.

"you have the gall to refer to them as 'ilk?'"

'Ilk' literally means 'kind of person'. It's not pejorative.

Jared: please read the recent interview Hugh Hewitt did with retired General William Odom, who ran the NSA under Reagan. I can't begin to do justice to what he says there.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 8, 2007 04:06 PM

The Seattle Times is the "moderate" left wing newspaper in Seattle. They have a definite agenda against the war and their "news" stories and editorials show little, if any, balance in reporting events from Iraq.

As a matter of fact, you have to read Malikin "and her ilk" just to balance out reading the Times or the Seattle-PI.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 8, 2007 07:25 PM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/08/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Posted by: David M at March 9, 2007 10:33 AM

Lex, your ideas on war have already been tried; they left the blood of 2 million Cambodians and 1 million Vietnamese on your hands. How much more before even you drown in it?

Posted by: SDN at March 9, 2007 08:17 PM

The true credit for any defeat in Iraq must be given to Ted Kennedy, he just had others follow the master plan he put together for our withdraw from Vietnam. Please let them know we fully expect a member of our government to set up a "Watch Dog Over Sight" Team, on each and every chopper that pulls the last US Marine out of the crowd. May the CIA remember to get all those who have spied on the enemy for us out before the tanks push down the gate, and at least get all the computer files out as they leave, in Vietnam files like this made "Things to do" list for winner.I hope CNN will be able to strike a deal with who ever runs a flag up the pole,I am sure the free press will not be allowed to stay to report on the national healing in progress. The MSM will flush all the after action reports down the drain and refocus our attention to who they think we need to elect in 08, clean up the last of George Bushs war.

Posted by: George Samek, CW-3 US Army Retired at March 10, 2007 04:21 PM