Beckel on Iraq: “I’d Pull Out”
I just finished watching a segment with David Asmun moderating a full-fledged argument between Cheri Jacobus and Bob Beckel. Beckel was as combative as I’ve ever seen him. He recited most of the Democratic talking points as you’d expect but the biggest surprise came when Asmun asked him how he’d conduct the war differently. To my total astonishment, Beckel said “I’d pull out”. I wasn’t certain but I thought I heard Asmun’s jaw hit the floot when Beckel said that without qualification. Then Beckel said that he’d reduce troops to “under a hundred thousand within 6 months” and “down to 30,000 by the end of 2006.” and that most Americans share Murtha’s feeling that we should get out as quickly as is feasible.
I loved Asmun’s response on that last point, saying that “Everyone wants wars to be over as soon as possible.” He also cited the Pew Poll that showed that 56% of Americans think that we can win this war and establish a functioning democracy in Iraq while only 33% of American journalists share that sentiment.
This type of diatribe shows you where most of the Democratic activists are at. That should scare everyone who cares about our national security. The thing that was most apparent to me during this was how visceral Beckel’s reaction was to anything that said that progress was being made or that this war is winnable. You couldn’t have gotten a more visceral response than Beckel’s.
After Asmun said that Hillary didn’t agree with Murtha’s plan, he asked Beckel who better reflected the views of the Democratic Party with Beckel immediately responding “Murtha.” As Republicans, we should be thankful for Murtha’s position because it’s militarily and intellectually indefensible. As Americans, though, we must be distraught that a distinguished military veteran like Murtha has so little confidence in the world’s only superpower’s capabilities.
It’s also distressing to hear that Murtha’s willing to abandon the Iraqis after they’ve fought so courageously and risked their lives in the hopes of establishing a government that protects their freedoms. That position is simply morally indefensible and he should be called on it as often as the subject comes up.
I’ve also been paying attention to the various Democrats’ opinions on troop withdrawal or Iraqi policy and I’ve been struck by the fact that they haven’t said a word about winning in Iraq and by how often they talk about the political effects this will have on Republicans. It’s striking because this is a window into their collective soul as to what’s most important to them.
As I’ve said here, this isn’t just about winning in Iraq because this is a GLOBAL WAR on Islamofascists.
In his book, “The War Against the Terror Masters”, Michael Ledeen makes the great point that global terrorist organizations can’t survive without state sponsorship.
Sovereign governments provide the terrorists with vital supports that they can’t survive without: money, technology and a base for planning missions and for training for those missions.
That’s why the Democrats’ insistence that Afghanistan was THE PLACE where the GWOT was supposed to be fought never made sense. They also didn’t acknowledge, at least publicly, that Afghanistan wasn’t the only place al-Qaida was located. As President Bush stated in his address to the nation on September 20, 2001, al-Qaida was found in over 60 countries around the world. The logical extension of this information is that Afghanistan should have always been considered nothing more than the vital first step in ridding the world of terrorists with global reach.
When you view things from that perspective, the Democrats’ insistence that Iraq wasn’t and shouldn’t be part of the GWOT becomes intellectually indefensible. That’s why, at this point in time, that we not lose sight of the great goals that must be achieved before this war is won. Not achieving those goals isn’t acceptable because they’re the best policy to keep the U.S. safe for this and future generations.
To not win or fight isn’t acceptable policy. Fighting and winning in Iraq and anywhere global terrorists exist is the only sane and safe policy.
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing