Harry Reid: Al-Qaeda Wins! Al-Qaeda Wins! Al-Qaeda Wins!

by John Hawkins | April 20, 2007 12:29 pm

I bet this[1] had members of Al-Qaeda high fiving all across the world,

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says time has already run out for a military solution.

Reid and other top Democrats met with President Bush yesterday.

They’re proposing a bill, which the President says he’ll veto, that would set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals.

“… the President knows that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid.

Reid says Iraq can only be won diplomatically, political, and economically.

The Brody File: Harry Reid on Abortion
But House Republicans disagree.

“If Harry Reid believes that this war is lost, where is his plan to win this war…” challenged Sen. Peter Hoekstra.”

Let’s break this down, shall we?

First of all, if America has lost the war, then who won it? Al-Qaeda.

Now, if the war is lost, why is it lost? Obviously Al-Qaeda and the other terrorists aren’t capable of defeating us militarily. Moreover, the Iraqis are building a military capable of policing their own nation without our help and we have every reason to think that eventually, their military will be able to do the job if given enough time. After all, there are nations all over the Middle East capable of maintaining their own internal security and there’s no reason to think that the Iraqis would be different over the long haul. So, if we lose in Iraq, it will be because we couldn’t take the heat and surrendered to Al-Qaeda.

Next up, let’s talk about winning the war, “diplomatically, political, and economically.” How can that possibly happen if the Iraqi government isn’t capable of defending itself? The terrorists/insurgents/and gangsters in Iraq aren’t going to be interested in negotiating for what they can take at the point of a gun. So, if we surrender to Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi military isn’t capable of taking up the slack, there’s not going to be any diplomatic, political, or economic victory — all hell’s going to break loose instead.

Have you ever noticed that Harry Reid and Company never talk about what the consequences are of the surrender that they’re suggesting? If you listen to Reid, Murtha, Pelosi and Company, you’d think we could just take our ball and go home and everything will be fine.

Well, you know what I want? I want Reid, Kos, Jane Hamsher, Cindy Sheehan, Glenn Greenwald and Company to be honest enough to lay it on the line. I want to hear them say that, yes, Al-Qaeda has beaten America in Iraq because we don’t have the stomach to continue. Yes, we realize that decision could lead to hundreds of thousands of additional Iraqi deaths, invasions of Iraq by nations like Turkey and Iran, and a civil war in Iraq that could make what’s happening there now look like a day at the beach and, yes, we also realize that we could see an enormous spike in oil prices if Iraq’s oil supply is cut off because of the fighting. Yes, we realize that it’s possible Iraq could become a satellite state of Iran. Yes, we realize that surrendering in Iraq could lead to terrorist enclaves being set up in Iraq. Yes, we realize that surrendering in Iraq would be a huge propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda, lead to less cooperation from other nations in the war on terrorism, and could very well lead to Al-Qaeda focusing their resources on the US instead of Iraq, which would likely mean more terrorist attacks in this country. Will all of those things happen? We don’t know. But, we do know they’re possible and we think that’s an acceptable price to get our troops out of there. If they’re supposed to be the “reality based community,” why can’t they get real about the consequences of the actions that they’re suggesting?

Instead we get arguments about whether we should have gone to war or not or about weapons of mass destruction. The truth is that those issues are of secondary importance compared to discussing the repercussions to leaving Iraq before the Iraqis can take care of themselves. I don’t see Harry Reid talking honestly about this. I don’t see the left side of the blogosphere dealing with this problem. But, if this is about what’s good for this country and not what’s good politics, why aren’t they openly talking about these possibilities? Why isn’t Harry Reid saying, “We just want to leave even if it is a propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda.” Why isn’t John Murtha going on TV and telling people that, “Yes, even if millions were to die fighting in an open civil war in Iraq and gas prices skyrocketed because their oil was cut off, those of us in the Democrat Party think that would be an acceptable price to pay so that we can leave.” That is what they think, isn’t it? So, why can’t they be honest enough to say it?

The Democrats aren’t just sitting on the sidelines and carping any more. They’re now in the catbird seat making decisions about the war in Iraq and they’re responsible for those decisions. If they cut off the funds for the war in Iraq and everything comes apart in Iraq, then that will be the fault of the Democrats, not George Bush.