The Consequences Of The Democrats’ Iraq Policy

I detest a lot of things about the way that Democrats argue about the war in Iraq…

* The dishonest way that so many of them voted for the war when it was popular and turned on it when public opinion went the other way.

* The way they criticize Bush, but have never offered up a plan for victory.

* The fact that they’ve encouraged the terrorists to murder our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians by convincing them that all they have to do is hold out a little longer and the Democrats will hand them victory.

* Their claim that “Bush lied” about weapons of mass destruction when countless Democrats looked at the same evidence and came to the same conclusions that Bush did.

You could go on and on with these examples. But, here’s what I really dislike the most about the way the Democrats argue about the war: the fact that they are, for political reasons, advocating that we leave Iraq before the Iraqi military can defend the country while studiously avoiding a discussion of the horrific consequences that may result from that action.

Some of those consequences could be, but are not limited to…

* The end of democracy in Iraq.
* Millions of Iraqis killed in a real “civil war.”
* The invasion of Iraq by Iran and/or Turkey.
* Iraq becoming a satellite state of Iran.
* A regional Shia on Sunni civil war that could begin as all sides pour in money and weapons.
* A terrorist “state within a state” controlled by Al-Qaeda.
* Al-Qaeda switching its focus from Iraq to the United States which could lead to more attacks here.
* A massive surge in recruiting by terrorist groups bolstered by Al-Qaeda’s “victory” over the US.
* A massive spike in worldwide oil prices if all the oil from Iraq is cut off in the fighting.

We don’t see Democrats in Congress or liberal bloggers saying, “Sure, those are things that could happen, but we think that’s a fair trade off if we can leave right now.” Instead, if you listened to the anti-war crowd, you’d think that there were no consequences to THE DEMOCRATIC DESIRE — not, Bush’s desire — to leave Iraq before its military is ready to defend the country.

If we leave Iraq before the Iraqis are capable of handling their own internal security, the resulting firestorm will likely make what’s going on there today look like a Sunday picnic, which is why any discussion of setting an arbitrary timeline or cutting and running should also feature an in depth discussion of the consequences of that action.

You’d think that would be a no brainer, wouldn’t you? After all, wasn’t there just a phony baloney Bill Moyer special claiming that the press didn’t ask enough tough questions getting into the war when it was popular (which wasn’t true at all)? So now, getting out of the war is popular and guess what: the press is studiously avoiding asking any tough questions about it — and where are the “watchdogs” in the press? Which members of the mainstream media are regularly asking Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton what they think the ramifications of leaving Iraq will be? They’re advocating a course of action similar to cutting the brake lines on a car and pushing it down a steep, pedestrian-filled hill and all they’re saying about it is something similar to, “Even though Bush is totally opposed to this, whatever happens will be his fault,” or “The polls say that the American people are tired of driving this car!”

The course of action the Democrats are pushing in Iraq right now might be politically popular, at least for the moment, but it would be an unmitigated disaster for the people of Iraq and for the United States. That’s why if the Democrats get their wish and we do surrender to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I suspect that there will be an enormous butcher’s bill to be paid for their political gains.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend