California Conservative

Barack Obama, who I predict will be Hillary’s running mate in 08, has called for a troop reduction in Iraq, according to this AP story.

Consistent with other Democrats’ Iraq opinions, Obama didn’t pass up the opportunity to rip President Bush.

“I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq,” the Illinois Democrat said during a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. “The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.”

Consistent with other Democrats’ speeches on the subject of Iraqi security and the use of the U.S. military, Sen. Obama doesn’t mention anything about winning the war there. Instead, we’re treated to the same message of pulling troops out before total victory is achieved.

While this is better sounding than the retreat and surrender plans that Rep. Murtha suggested, it isn’t what the American people deserve to hear. I don’t want to hear about competing plans on how to draw our military down unless it’s tied to a plan that tells us how we’ll win the war there AND how we’ll make certain that Iran and Syria won’t meddle in Iraq’s affairs.

The debate over when to bring troops home has turned bitter since decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), called last week for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He was criticized by the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama defended Murtha and called any criticism of his patriotism “shameful.”
—–
Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a troop reduction in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration for questioning the patriotism of people who have spoken out against the war.

While some people said things that were over the top, the truth is that most of the people who spoke Friday night were very respectful of Rep. Murtha. Overall, I’d say that the debate isn’t bitter as much as it’s intense. I’d further add that there’s a good reason for this debate to be intensely fought, namely because so much is at stake in this fight.

Most importantly, this is an issue that will determine the emerging Iraqi government’s security and freedom. For that reason alone, we’d better get this part right. As I’ve written here several times, establishing a stable, functioning democracy in this region would be a huge counterbalance against the Iranian hardliners. Along with Afghanistan and Lebanon, Iraq would put lots of pressure on Iran and Syria to reform.

Almost in conjunction with democracies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon comes the greater likelihood of region-wide reforms. If we can drain the region of the tyrannical rulers currently in place, then the terrorists will really be on the run. 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.

Appearing on Monday night’s Hannity & Colmes, Dick Morris made a profound statement by saying that the wars of the 21st century will be fought over the spread of democracy because the world is reaching consensus on democracies. He pointed out that we’re winning the war in Iraq and offered as proof the fact that the Sunnis who wouldn’t participate in the historic vote of Jan. 30, 2005 have now put together their own list of candidates to be part of the emerging Iraqi government.

Finally, we owe it to other nations who ask for our help to assist them towards liberty and self-determination, religious freedom and equal justice. As more countries become democracies led by the rule of law and free markets, the security of the American people will improve dramatically.

PS: If you want to hear one of the greatest Presidential speeches of all time, I’d refer you to President Bush’s speech to a joint session of Congress Sept. 20, 2001. Follow this link to watch the speech.

It’s my opinion that every American should watch, listen or read that speech on a regular basis to remind ourselves of why we’re fighting this war.

RELATED:
Clinton/Obama in ‘08?

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005 at 7:34 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Hillary, Iran, Iraq, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.