Sunday, 18 February 2007

US Congress to Allies - "We could care less about your support"

The Democrats want out of Iraq, clear and simple, and will do anything in order to achieve this goal. All you hear from them is that Iraq is the current day Vietnam, that we can't win and that we should withdraw.

The withdrawal from Vietnam began in 1973 after Richard Nixon signed a truce with North Vietnam. His goal was "peace with honour" by denying the communist North a victory in the South. In order to obtain their agreement to the truce Nixon pledged that the United States would provide the South with military aid and funding so that they could protect themselves.

However, this was not enough for a number of hardcore anti-war activists including Jane Fonda and John Kerry who continued their campaign against US support for the South. In scenes remarkably similar to today's shenanigans by the Democrats they convened a war crimes tribunal, condemned the role the US was playing and initiated a strong campaign to persuade a Democrat controlled Congress to cut off all aid to South Vietnam (and Cambodia).

When Nixon was forced to resign due to Watergate the very first piece of legislation put to Congress was to cut off aid completely to the South, which was passed and enacted in January 1975. Just a couple of months later the North Vietnamese thought they'd have a crack at the border defences of the South, which appeared to have weakened significantly. They were genuinely surprised to find themselves rolling into Saigon at the end of April.

The result? Over the next four years more than three million people were slaughtered by the victorious North in establishing their socialist Utopia. Some estimates are much higher. To those on the left Stalin's maxim applies - one death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic. The unbelievable death toll and heart wrenching stories of hundreds of thousands of people taking to boats and trying to get to free countries, often with tragic consequences, are a mere detail.

So let's move on to the present. The Democrats were joined by 17 Republicans in a non-binding resolution denouncing President Bush's troop build up in Iraq. In a very brave political move two Democrats voted against the resolution. What is the point of supporting a non-binding resolution? For the turncoat Republicans the answer is easy - they're worried about the election campaign of '08 and want to be able to say they voted to denounce the build up.

For the Democrats the goal is clearly somewhat more insidious. The wiser heads have worked out that withdrawing funding for the war would be political suicide - the comparison to Vietnam is too stark. They have also done everything they need to in order to stop the Republicans putting up their own resolution that called for supporting the goals of the President in Iraq. The Democrats' tactics are reasonably clear - take a slow drip, death by a thousand cuts approach to achieving their goal of withdrawal from Iraq. Jack Murtha even said as much in his revealing interview with yesterday in which he clearly states that "...we're going to stop this surge." It is a disgusting and despicable tactic by a Democratic Party that is playing domestic politics hard and is willing to turn upside down the normal functioning of the House and Senate in order to achieve its goals.

There is, however, a negative aspect that the Democrats have either missed or don't care about - the effect on America's partners in the war including its longest term and staunchest friends such as Australia and Great Britain not to mention unsung contributors such as South Korea (they have the 3rd largest force in Iraq) and Poland. These countries have contributed soldiers at great expense from the outset, and invested serious political capital in supporting the goal of freedom for the Iraqi people. I think it's no coincidence that the world's best leader, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, while taking a swipe at Barak Obama's lunatic position of wanting a withdrawal by March next year, expanded his statement to include the entire Democratic Party. He understands all too well the consequences for Australia in the Pacific region of having an isolationist United States with a Democrat as President.

In spite of the resolution being non-binding, and therefore meaningless, the media around the world has chosen to portray it as a huge setback for the administration. Australia's ABC headlines "US House votes to reject Bush's Iraq strategy"; CNN - "House rebukes the president on Iraq"; BBC - "Vote signals hard times ahead for Bush"; Al Jazeera - "US House denounces Bush troop plan". These are hardcore headlines that set a scene completely at odds with the ability of the resolution to force the President to do anything he doesn't want to. When the Democrats grit their teeth, cross their fingers and say "we support the troops" they may be kidding themselves and their supporters but to America's terrorist enemies the message is all too clear - Democrats good. Republicans bad.

The Democrats clearly don't understand what the war is about. Freedom is not a value they treasure. They have lurched so far to the left that they have become blinded by their ideology and want out regardless of the consequences. They have no idea where the rest of the world is and are only concerned about 'America's reputation' internationally - by which they mean their kindred spirits in socialist Europe.

By starting the process of a slow strangulation of the effort in Iraq the Democrat controlled Congress has sent a clear and unambiguous message to her staunchest allies - "We could care less about your support". The consequences will be profound.


John Teague said...

I realize this is an old post, but it seems to me that if the brave Aussies are so on-board with nation building in Iraq than perhaps you would not mind sending say 80,000 of your own sons and daughters to help out. That would be about half of the U.S. contingent currently in Iraq alone, and say something on the order of, oh, 79,300 more Aussies than are currently deployed in Iraq. Sorry mate, but when Australia can't muster more than the bloody Dutch, it all sounds like a lot of armchair warrior talk to me.

Jack Lacton said...

Australia started with 2000 troops and currently has 550. The Netherlands started with 1345 and now has 15. I'm not exactly sure that's a good comparison, as isn't the US one given the relative sizes of our populations and military.

Without going through the entire list of countries I think Australia is probably the largest contributor per head of population.