Thursday, November 08, 2007

The Dems Try Again To Link Funding For Our Troops With A Retreat

I have to give Nancy Pelosi and her friends credit for one thing,if nothing else...persistance.

Today, Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress revealed yet another attempt to undercut our troops in Iraq and force a US defeat.

Pelosi is going to bring a new Iraq measure to the floor linking $50 billion in funding for the war to a pullout for American troops which would have to begin immediately and conclude next year. In other words, no immediate pullout,no funding.

In the interim, the bill states that it would `leave a small force to continue to train Iraqi troops, look after US interests and fight al Qaeda.'

That's funny...I thought Pelosi and her soulmates said the war in Iraq was a `distraction' and has nothing to do with fighting al Qaeda!

Remember that one?

The bill also atempts to undercut US troop movements using the same device the last one did..requiring troops to spend a year of mandatory time at home between deployments.

The real reason for this shameless nonsense is obvious. The last thing Pelosi and her pals want is success in Iraq,as it undercuts their entire stance for the `08 elections.And even if this fails to get through Congress(which it probably won't), it's a good tool for ginning up the Angry Left and bringing the campaign contributions rolling in.

When it comes to looking good for that part of the Democrat base, it makes political sense for Pelosi and her cohorts, even if it doesn't make any kind of common sense and hurts our war effort.

With the significant strategic ground gained by our new strategy under General Petraeus, who many of the Democrats in Congress also attempted to slime,success and stability in Iraq are a real possibility. Both US and Iraqi civiian casualties have plummeted, and al Qaeda has been tossed out of places like Anbar and Dimondi that were once regarded as lost to the enemy. Even Baghdad has stabilized to a large degree. in spite of the best efforts of Iran and the Shiite militias.

And that,of course, is an absolute nightmare for Pelosi and those Democrats who put their own partisan political machinations ahead of the good of the country or supporting our troops under fire.

I still haven't forgotten how Harry Reid stopped a funding bill containing a pay raise for the military as well as funding for badly needed equipment from coming to the floor because he couldn't muscle up the votes to tack an amendment on to it for an immediate troop pullout.

I hesitate to use the words `aid and comfort to our enemies' but it certainly smells like it. And it's by no means a pleasant aroma.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

A "small force" is inadequate to figt Al Qaeda, look after US interests, and trail Iraqi miliary personnel. Even if we only want to fight Al Qaeda and nothing e;se. a small force is not adequate.

With that said I would not be opposed to withdrawing all American troops from Iraq. Frankly I think we would get better utility for American national security from securing our borders, developing all of our oil and gas reserves, building more refineries, closely monitoring the mosques, and placing a moratorium on immigration from Islamic countries than we are getting from positioning a large number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While I would not be opposed to the Democrat position of withdrawl from Iraq, the notion that a "small force" can be expected to successfully engage Al Qaeda is patently ridiculous. The small force that the Democrats apparently want to leave behind would be a target for Al Qaeda and other terrorists and it would not be large enough to engage Al Qaeda effectively. Worse it would give Al Qaeda the impression that they can beat the United States which would only lead to more recruits and it would only place the US in even more danger.

With the current strategy we have had moderate success. This is an encouraging sign but there still remains much word to do. The truth is the current troop levels for Iraq really aren't enough to do the job of defeating Al Qaeda to the level that it should be, the notion that an even smaller force can somehow do better is a ridiculously stupid suggestion. Anyone who thinks a small force is going to sufficient to defeat an enemy as powerful as Al Qaeda in Iraq is unfit to hold ANY position of leadership.