Withdrawing from Iraq: Reviewing The Consequences

http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/08152007.htm

Americans Want Their New Direction in Iraq
Scott Malensek, Senior Writer
August 15, 2007

This time last year, the American people were telling politicians in Washington that they were not satisfied with the handling of the war in Iraq. Democrats promised that if they were elected, they’d provide a “New Direction in Iraq.” Today, most Americans can clearly see that the New Direction in Iraq is withdrawal from Iraq, as fast as possible. Consequences of that withdrawal are nearly irrelevant (save, political consequences to the Democratic Party’s agenda), and only the details of the retreat remain in debate within the party.

Well, before the elections last fall Americans didn’t approve of the way the President was handling the war in Iraq. Only 35% supported his efforts at handling the war. Many claim that the change of power in Washington from the Republicans to the Democrats from the American people’s demand for the vaunted New Direction in Iraq. Democratic party leaders and want-to-be-leaders all declared a mandate from the American people to “change direction” in Iraq.

When Democrats were sworn into power in January, the approval rating for Congress was among the highest in American history-well over 55%. Today, the Democrats’ Congress has fallen down to about 20% (some approval ratings put it as low as 14%!). Having been elected on the promise of handling the Iraq War better than the President, a new poll came out this recently that is absolutely stunning.

Only 3% of the American people approve of the way the Democrats’ Congress has handled the Iraq War.

Conversely, 97% of Americans don’t approve of the way the Democrats’ Congress is handling the war in Iraq. The American people have spoken, and they’ve told Congress that they want a new direction in the way they’re handling the Iraq War.

How are Democrats handling the war? The simple answer is that they’re not doing anything beyond declaring it lost and rhetorically opposing it. Meanwhile they, in effect, are continuing to support it. The most the Democrats’ Congress has done is offer non-binding resolutions against operations that they’d previously demanded (recall that prior to the 12/06 and 1/07 meetings between Democratic Party leaders and Syrian dictator Assad, most Democrats described their pre-midterm election, New Direction in Iraq as sending more troops to Iraq; a surge in forces). On several occasions, the Democrats’ Congress has pretended to try and use the power of the purse strings to cut funding for the war, but on each occasion it was known before the first phone call was made that any such effort would be vetoed. Rather than barter, trade, and sell pork barrel projects and other earmarks to bribe/buy/cajole enough votes to over ride a veto, the Democrats chose to “make a statement” with their fake efforts to cut the funding for the war (and it’s a good thing since almost 85% of Americans polled do not want Congress to cut the funding for body armor, food, ammunition, and other supplies to forces in the field).

So what is the Congress expected to do? Americans don’t want them to cut the funding for the war, and they’re not willing to do it anyway. Americans were told there’d be a new direction in Iraq, and they clearly wanted that, but what new direction can the Democrats’ Congress provide? They can’t dictate strategy as they are not the Commanders-in-chief. They can pretend to provide “oversight,” with hundreds of hearings, but that’s proven completely ineffectual, and Americans know a witch hunt when they see one (see also Congressional approval rating and approval of how the Democrats’ Congress is handling the war in Iraq).

Congressional Democrats seriously need to recognize a few things:

â—ª Americans did want a new direction in 11/06, but they expected a new direction towards success. Until DNC Chairman Howard Dean said that the New Direction in Iraq didn’t mean immediate withdrawal, Republicans and Democrats were in a dead heat for control of Congress, but when it was claimed that the New Direction wasn’t a retreat/defeat, Democrats surged ahead in polls and took both houses of Congress. They were not given a mandate for “redeployment”, but rather a mandate to provide a new strategy for success in Iraq (one that remains to be shown or even described by the Democratic Party).

â—ª If Congressional Democrats lack the political courage to trade other elements of their political agenda in exchange for enough votes to override a Presidential veto, then they are effectively powerless for that’s the only power they have to change the war’s direction.

â—ª It’s time to consider that perhaps the New Direction in Iraq that the American people desired was only partially an electoral statement about President Bush’s handling of the war, and was in fact partially a statement about how the American people are tired of the incessant rhetorical opposition to success in Iraq. Americans not only expect a New Direction towards success, but we expect our leaders to lead us to that success, and a nation that’s led the world to victory in two worldwide wars as well as put men on the moon, expects that our leaders find a way to defeat 10-30,000 insurgents in Iraq.

The American people are a hopeful, positive, and helping people. The American government has historically reflected that population which the elected leaders represent. Today, however, the government is not at all as hopeful, as positive, and as helping as the people. Why do 97% of the American people disapprove of the way the Democrats’ Congress is handling the war in Iraq? It’s because Americans are a hopeful people who still believe that this nation can do great things; can do anything.

The Democrats’ Congress does not believe the nation can do anything, and they surely do not advocate even trying. Instead, they oppose great efforts before they begin, dismiss the words of decorated, honorable military leaders when they report politically unsavory results (why are signs of success in Iraq politically unsavory for Democrats?), and they advocate retreat rather than supporting a fight against terrorists wherever they are found.

Make no mistake about it, retreat is defeat, and advocating retreat is advocating defeat. No matter how stupid a person is, every American knows that “redeploy” is a Monty Python sort of description for retreat, and Democrats who advocate “redeployment” might as well be advocating a policy of “runaway!!”

Why then do Congressional Democrats continue to dance and parse with their complaints about the war in Iraq? The answer is simple: President Bush is not going to withdraw forces. The war will continue. That’s why the leading Democratic Party Presidential candidates have all come out and said that if they are elected, and then they’ll keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Whether it’s President H Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards, they’ve all said they will keep the war going.

They’ve already made that concession because they know that it’s not surges in military force levels that have failed. It’s the premature evacuation of forces that continues to fail.

â—ª When force levels were dropped after the fall of Saddam’s regime, violence increased.

â—ª When force levels were dropped after the first round of elections, violence increased.

â—ª When force levels were dropped after national elections in 12/05 (per Sen. Kerry’s “demand”) violence increased.

â—ª When British force levels dropped in Basra this year, violence increased.

It’s not the presence of forces that causes violence, it’s the lack of forces that causes it, and a complete lack of forces (a full withdrawal or “redeployment”) will lead to complete violence. It’s the one thing that 16 different intelligence organizations agreed upon in the last National Intelligence Estimate, and it’s the one thing that even left and right leaning armchair generals agree upon.

If the US leaves Iraq:

â—ª The government there will collapse,

â—ª There will be a massive increase in violence-possibly anarchy akin to Beirut in the 80’s, Sarajevo, Grozny, Kabul, and Mogadishu in the 90’s,

â—ª There is a strong possibility of genocide with hundreds of thousands or even millions killed,

â—ª The sectarian violence and covert foreign support for factions inside Iraq from its neighbors could very well lead to a regional war.

Only people in complete denial believe that if the US leaves, Iraq will be a better place (appease the terrorists demands, and all will be better).

Since the Democrats’ Congress is unwilling to cut the funding and end the war at the expense of other political agenda items, and since the Democrats’ Congress is unwilling to support the very actions they demanded before the election (sending more troops to Iraq), the very first result is that the segment of the American people who are already defeated (ready to capitulate Iraq and surrender it to increased violence, genocide, possibly regional war) are dissatisfied with the Democrats’ Congress.

On the other side of the coin is that segment of the American people who were misled in 2006 and believed that the Democrats’ New Direction In Iraq meant a new strategy for success (including the October 2006 call from Democratic Party leaders to send more troops to bring about success in Iraq). They too are dissatisfied with Congress’ handling of the Iraq War.

Put simply, the Democrats’ Congress cannot have it both ways and still expect that more than 3% of the American people will approve of their handling of the Iraq War. Since no substantive action has been taken to cut the funding and accept defeat, and since Democrats in Congress can’t even imagine let alone advocate success in Iraq, no demographic has been satisfied.

It’s been said that the first rule of politics is that in every situation one can either:

Do something

Or…

Do nothing

The decision to do either is still a decision, and every decision has results, consequences, and those who made the decision bear the responsibility of its results. A person can either pay a bill or not pay it but that is a decision, and there are consequences for deciding either way. People are always accountable for what they have chosen to do, and for what they have chosen not to do. Sure, a career politician/professional lawyer can try to spin, distort, blame others, or come up with excuses, but 97% of the American people know when they’re not getting results.

97% of the American people are not happy with the way the Congress is handling the Iraq war because the Democrats’ Congress is not handling the Iraq War-at all. They’re not doing anything about it. The war continues, and no amount of finger-pointing, excuse-making or spinning is going to change the facts that: as long as appeasement, retreat/defeat, or opposition to success is advocated, there can be no success. One cannot support/advocate/wish for success and oppose the pursuit of it at the same time.

Last fall, Democrats were given control of both houses of Congress, and President Bush was made a lame duck. Democrats were given the chance to either put up (take action and end the war even if it means trading other political agendas) or shut up. With only 3% approving of their handling (or lack thereof) of the Iraq War, they don’t even need to shut up now. No one’s listening.

Instead, the American people (who expected deeds not words) hear only rhetoric instead of seeing action; people see only words, and no deeds. Americans see Congress‘ non-binding opposition to the war, and as such, their support for the Democrats’ Congress has become equally non-binding. How else can one explain that President Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress, or that more Americans approve of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War than they do of the Democrats’ Congress handling of the war?