Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Good news in Iraq bad news for some politicians

When anti-war politicians first started simply thinking that Bush might possibly be wrong about Weapons of Mass destruction, these politicians were heard daily via the media for years stating their oposition, even while our soldiers were in Iraq fighting.

And yet now, while things are looking up in Iraq, and it's looking more and more like we might just possibly win the war in Iraq some day, these politicians are not acknowledging that they were wrong. Nor is there a public outcry that they do so.

I have seen some reports on the evening news, and I have read a few stories in my local newspaper via the associated press, but nothing compared to what we heard when it was announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Last year most anti-war politicians, including all of the top three democratic nominees in the 2008 presidential campaign, voted for or supported the idea of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Since about 70% of the voters were fed up with the war, the democrats decided they would give the people what they wanted.

Likewise, while the surge was approved by a democratic run congress, animosity regarding the surge by top democrats in both houses including the top three democratic candidates was prodigious.

Now, one year later, according to Mort Kondracke's column today, "For sure the surge is working militarily -- U.S. deaths are down 80 percent; civilian deaths, 75 percent; car bombs and suicide attacks, 60 percent. Al Qaeda terrorists are on the run. Iraqi security forces have expanded by 100,000 and are now in charge of half of Iraq's provinces."

Kondracke wrote that he wonders if "the Democratic candidates -- or Congressional leaders -- will acknowledge that the troop surge in Iraq creates the possibility that the United States could actually win the conflict and that their calls for hasty troop withdrawals may be misguided."

I would like to add one thing to what Kondracke said: How long will it take for these anti-war politicians in Washington to pay politically? And, if they do, will this spell the end to the democratic party as we know it?

I mean, think about it, while many democrats supported Bush's initial plans for war in Iraq, even those democrats have since decided the war in Iraq was a mistake. And they may be right for all I know. I'm no war expert. I can only form opinions based upon what I read since I'm pretty much isolated here in this small hospital working -- well, supposedly working.

But if these anti-war politicians are wrong, and the United States clearly wins the war in Iraq (even if it's ten years from now), and a stable democracy is created, and a strong Iraqi military is established to protect and defend that democracy, and the United States has another strong ally to go along with Israel in the middle east, you'd have to imagine that the "we must pull out of Iraq, and we must pull out now" crowd would pay dearly by the American public who clearly does not want the U.S. to lose a war.

I haven't seen poll numbers lately, but I imagine the numbers remain low. But the recent progress continues, and things continue to improve both militarily and politically in Iraq, people are going to hold the anti-war crowd responsible for their actions.

Especially, I must add, considering I truly believe their actions have hampered the war effort as opposed to helping it. With a powerful force inside the U.S. against what the U.S was doing in Iraq must only have strenghened and emboldened the enemy there. Plus, I am sure, that it had to have had a negative effect on troop morale.

Like I said, I'm no expert on war. I clearly admit there have been some terrible mistakes made on the part of the U.S. both politically and militarily.

But progress in Iraq, good news from that part of the world, has to be bad news for some politicians, especially the one's who have been in bed with the idea of retreat or defeat, whatever you want to call it.

I'm no expert on politics for that matter either, but I've noticed that the democratic candidates for president have been pretty mum about the War on Terror lately.

I can't imagine why.

No comments: