Friday, December 15, 2006

Building support for the Iraq War.

It amazes me that Liberals are gaining any traction with the dishonest and cynical "Republicans lost in 2006 because of the illicit war in Iraq" line.

Whenever I see this kind of comment I think to myself either the speaker is a liar or an idiot.

Can't we all agree that the war was initially supported in a bipartisan Congressional manner, by a majority of the American people, and it was supported then for the same reasons that it should be supported now? Going into Iraq was the right thing to do then and really, was the only option that was still on the table (given the utter failure of the protracted UN deliberations and proclamations). To claim it is an "illicit war" is factually untrue and an entirely different thing than raising honest questions about how well it is being conducted. The former is deceptive and traitorous, the latter is prudent and reasonable.

So first question that should be answered: Is it a just war?

The answer is clearly "yes" according to any Just War doctrine you can come up with. We know that Saddam was an evil mass murderer. We know he was a threat to our national security as well as those of our allies. We know that he used WMDs. We found WMDs subsequent to our recent liberation efforts there. We know he was in defiance of numerous UN "lines drawn in the sand". We know that he harbored terrorists. We know that he funded terrorists. We know that Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf war which means that we were technically in a state of war with Iraq before we even went into Baghdad. We know he was in violation of UN resolution 1441. ALL of these things were laid out by Bush before he committed troops. When he did commit them he did a stellar job and I commend him. My only complaint at the time was how long it took him to get into gear. He left Saddam WAY too much time to dispose of incriminating evidence and to give the French and Russians the opportunity to undermine our military and intelligence efforts.

Second question. Then why has support waned?

1. Because some people hate Bush regardless of what he does. Remember, he is governing from the left and is still hated by lefties just because he is Bush.

2. Many people are idiots (consider how many people think that the government is behind 9/11). These people are easily swayed by leftist media propaganda about the war. For example, some still actually think we found no WMDs in Iraq despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

3. Hawks have been disappointed in the manner in which Bush conducted the war post "mission accomplished". He did not secure the Iraq borders so the Iranians have managed to conduct a proxy war in Iraq. He has not cut off sources of funds from Saudi Arabian private interests. He has not "nuked" terrorist strongholds. Bottom line, he is conducting the war like a weeny liberal. This does not please the bulk of the American populace (who are, let's face it, hawks). We want victory. We want to go in and kick some proverbial butt. Instead, we fight like this is some kind of PC police action.

These three reasons add up to a large group of people who are unhappy with Bush's war effort.

Now, is Bush going to win a PR war at home by appeasing the first group that hates him? Of course not. If he brings all the troops home and Iraq falls into anarchy and ends up being worse than the Taliban controlled Afghanistan then the leftist Bush haters will still hate him because that is what they do.

Can he convince the idiot group that the effort is worth it? Probably not because this requires for them to have actual firing brain cells. There is a segment of the population who are "feelers" not "thinkers". Some of these can be educated to a level of cognitive thought that might get them on board but stupidity is a hard thing to overcome. The people who ignorantly cry about not "finding any WMDs" or that "Bush claimed the effort would be a slam dunk" or that that the "administration has changed the reasons for going to war" are not worth reasoning with. All of these assertions have been thoroughly debunked over and over but those idiots are not going to be swayed by facts. In the end, getting support from dumb people is just gravy but cannot be relied upon as the basis for a coalition of support.

The third group is where the President can work to get his credibility back. He needs to ignore the drive-by media, the Iraq Surrender Group, the Democrats (except Zell and Joe), and the socialist countries around the world. He needs to get in there and fight like he means to win. For starters...

- Let our troops take their gloves off.
- Cut off supply lines from Iran and Syria.
- Inform the Saudis that if another drop of money comes from their people to the terrorists that we will immediately start drilling in ANWR for our oil (Bush can start that process tomorrow by Executive Order).
- Establish a strict curfew.
- Bomb terrorist strong-holds even if that results in civilian casualties.
- Execute any Iraqi soldiers who collaborate with terrorists.

Finally, prosecute those in this country who give aid and comfort to the enemy. These people are, to be blunt, traitors. Shut down CNN operations in the States and send collaborators at the NYT and the leakers in the government to jail. Furthermore, threaten to veto EVERY Democrat piece of legislation in the next 2 years if they continue to undermine our efforts in Iraq.

In other words, play hardball.

There are ways to win this war and anything less than an effort to win would be immoral and will leave this world in a bigger mess than it already is.


Post a Comment

<< Home