The Conservative Cat

« Weekend | Main | Tuesday »

January 16, 2007

Notes from Ferdy - Standing at a Safe Distance from a Lame Duck President

Republican Senators are not famous for their courage, and Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman has become an excellent example of the breed by placing himself in a position to be heralded as an opponent of Bush's new plan for Iraq. The headline of the story is White House Tries to Sell Iraq Plan to Skeptical Republicans. Coleman appears in the middle of the story, but his existence is enough to create the impression that the President's own party is against him.

Later in the same article, the House leadership is given credit for sticking by the President. GOP Conference Chair Adam Putnam is then quoted as saying that the Republican leaders may put forth a resolution to "challenge the Democrats' plan".

This is where it gets surreal, because the Democrats don't have a plan, they have a vague idea in the general direction of pulling out and damn the consequences.

It's the consequences that are completely missing from the current debate. Okay, that's an exaggeration. There appears to be exactly one guy in who has those consequences firmly in mind. Here's what he said

"I want to remind you of the consequences if those who want to withdraw from Iraq happen to prevail in the debate," he said. "An early withdrawal would be a defeat for the United States of America. An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists. Talk about a deadline before we've done the job sends chills throughout the spines of Iraqi citizens, who are wondering whether or not the United States has the capacity to keep its word.

"An early withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and [Osama] bin Laden. An early withdrawal before we've completed the mission would say to the United States military, 'Your sacrifices have gone in vain.' "

That one guy is, of course, President Bush.

The Democrats have no answer to Bush's objection. To them, the idea that the United States is standing its ground is what's making people hate us, and if we establish a pattern of fleeing in the face of sustained terror attacks, we'll be more popular. Call me crazy, but if you draw a line through those dots you end up with an equation that says Terrorism Works.

Now, I want to make it completely clear that I'm not assaulting anyone's patriotism here. Giving courage to terrorists is not unpatriotic, it's mind-bogglingly stupid. Let us not forget that the first Iraq War, which was a complete rout, was followed by the release of the hostages and Oslo Accords. Conversely, our failure to support democracy in Afghanistan during the Eighties allowed the Taliban to get control.

There is, however, a greater irony here. If the Iraq adventure cannot be salvaged, it is not a failure of American foreign policy, it is a failure of liberal ideals, ideals that claim people prefer peace to war and economic prosperity to racial hatred.

The Iraqi government is itself a large, multi-ethnic body of political leaders. If getting political leaders together to talk nice was something that worked, then Iraq would not be a problem. And if indeed the only way to keep the peace is to have a murderous thug like Saddam in charge, then why don't we install a murderous thug of our own? Are Europeans so superior to other races that they're the only ones capable of separating the church and the state?

But in fact the debate on the Iraq War is not couched in there terms. It's couched entirely in terms of American interests and American costs.

Except for that one guy. You know, the one Norm Coleman doesn't want to be seen with.

Respectfully submitted,

Ferdinand T. Cat

# At Tue 9:49 PM | Permalink | Trackback URI | Comments (1) | More Notes from Ferdy | Tags: Adam Putnam conservative George W Bush Iraq journalism Norm Coleman terrorism War on Terror

Trackback Pings

Comments

Posted by: beth at January 16, 2007 11:13 PM

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments:
Enter the anti-spammer code shown below.