The Democrats Want To Lose In Iraq For Purely Political Reasons

by John Hawkins | January 31, 2007 10:32 am

The pro-surrender Democrats[1] are bound and determined to give-in to Al-Qaeda before the surge has a chance to work:

“Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee began laying the constitutional groundwork today for an effort to block President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

…Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who acted as chairman for the hearing, said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi army and police. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline.

…Mr. Feingold insisted that his resolution would “not hurt our troops in any way” because they would all continue to be paid, supplied, equipped and trained as usual — just not in Iraq.

The panel heard from legal experts, who cited constitutional debates over conflicts ranging from the “quasi-war” with Napoleon in 1798 to peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Somalia in recent years. No war seemed to hang more heavily over the hearing than Vietnam, where Congress brought American involvement to a close by cutting off financing.

Prof. Robert Turner of the University of Virginia suggested that Congress had made itself responsible for the deaths of the 1.7 million Cambodians estimated to have been slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, by denying funds for President Nixon to wage war inside Cambodia. Similarly, he said Congress bore responsibility for the deaths of 241 marines killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon in 1983 because it raised the question of forcing a withdrawal there.”

The surge hasn’t even started yet and we’re already seeing results in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is fleeing Baghdad, Al-Sadr’s militia is standing down, the Iraqi government is standing up, and we’re knocking the Iranians around. Plus, when we have clearcut performance benchmarks in Iraq, like having the Iraqis take over the day to day security of every province by the end of November, that will allow us to see if we’re succeeding or failing by the end of year. So, what’s not to like once you get beyond the mindless pessimism?

Here’s the honest truth: the primary motivator for the Democrats right now is politics, pure and simple, not our national security.

The war is unpopular and their base is demanding that we give up, but it goes much deeper than that. You see, at this point, the Democrats have calculated that it’s in their political interest to fail in Iraq and therefore, they want to lose the war.

After all, they’ve successfully managed to portray this as “Bush’s war,” and if they cut off funds and everything falls apart, well, they’re confident that they can blame that on Bush. But, on the other hand, if the surge succeeds, then Bush will get a boost from it and the popularity of the war will climb. That would put them in an incredibly tough spot in 2008 because their base will demand that we capitulate to the terrorists whether we’re winning or losing, and the rest of the American public won’t go along with knuckling under in an effort that seems to be succeeding.

On the other hand, if we lose, it would be a huge hit for the left’s most hated foe, George Bush, it’ll humiliate the military, which most liberals feel nothing but contempt for despite their protestations to their contrary, and they’ll be able to spend years walking around, saying, “See? You can’t win the war on terror with military means. We have to use law enforcement measures instead!”

To liberals, these petty concerns are more important than America winning a war that is vitally important to our national security.

  1. pro-surrender Democrats:

Source URL: