By the end of the day we will hear in detail what President George W. Bush has planned for our military effort in Iraq. His speech to the nation also is supposed to include details of additional infrastructure rebuilding as well as renewed diplomatic efforts.
But it is the military effort, the so-called "Surge" in troops that has garnered the most attention and the most hot air from Congress.
If the cacophony of voices emanating from those hallowed halls is to be believed, Bush may just as well not appear and speak tonight because the Democratic majority intends to sidetrack his new plan, and put it all out to pasture before he can even implement it.
Fortunately, that isn't going to happen. Congress can't do any such thing without exposing our troops to an unspeakable level of vulnerability, to say nothing of exposing the Iraqis themselves to another genocide reminiscent of Pol Pot's attempt to exterminate all non-communist Cambodians in the late 1970s.
Among the chief proponents of the effort to sabotage Bush's new plan, and thus our troops, and thus our country, are Senators Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy, neither of whom has anything remotely resembling expertise on military matters. That doesn't stop them from running their mouths though.
Kennedy claims Congress has to approve the new direction in our military efforts in Iraq, and has the means to halt the deployment of the added troops Bush is expected to order to that country. Wrong.
Congress, if all the Democrats as well as a majority of Republicans agree, can vote to cut off military funds for the War on Terror. But they can't decide how to apply the funds that exist now, nor can a governmental body that has only a smidgen of members who even served in the military micromanage the ongoing operations.
If they did this, and overrode an expected veto of such action from President Bush, the result would be a media fest of anti-American news organizations filming our troops jumping into the nearest military vehicle and fleeing for the nearest friendly border with the rag tag terrorists chasing after them firing the AK-47s in the air.
I am relatively certain that most Republicans don't want that, and probably most Democrats either.
Kennedy also claims there is no military solution for Iraq, and to bolster this erroneous assessment, claims there was no military solution in Vietnam. Wrong on both counts. Not only was there a military solution in Vietnam, it was achieved twice, as I have written many times in the past.
But in both cases American politicians, from both parties, squandered and sabotaged our military successes, ultimately leading to the fall of South Vietnam and the deaths of some 4 million Southeast Asians who were butchered, tortured, and raped by the communists.
Kennedy was among the members of Congress who approved cutting all aid to South Vietnam, military and otherwise, setting the stage for the communist takeover and the resultant carnage.
Obviously, in his warped view of the universe that was the resolution he anticipated and worked toward. Others who helped included the late Sen. Frank Church, co-author of the Case-Church resolution that stripped the South Vietnamese of all American help, military and otherwise; John Murtha, who was first seated in the House of Representatives in 1974; and John Kerry, who wasn't elected to anything yet but had been secretly meeting with the communists to undermine America.
It is simply amazing to hear this bellicosity from Kennedy of all people. He is nothing special, just the last living son of a prohibition era criminal, who would be far more in character rubbing elbows with the offspring of Al Capone if Capone had been less flamboyant and more willing to pay off the feds, than trying to pass himself off as landed gentry.
Kennedy is doing nothing more than using his Senate platform to spread the Big Lie, much the same as the German Nazis did in WWII, hoping that enough people will accept his warped view of events, rather than investigate and find the truth for themselves. I don't spend too much time worrying about the likes of Ted Kennedy, but you can't help but wonder why he is so hell bent on destroying America.
Does he blame the country for the deaths of his two far more capable brothers, and see his continual efforts to undermine and weaken us as a form of payback for their deaths? Fortunately, in this case, he is just so much wind.
It was noted recently that Saddam Hussein was the worst living mass murderer in the world at the time of his execution. As an individual perhaps, but the members of the US Congress and their supporters who set the stage for the debacle in Southeast Asia in the 70s have a far worse record than Saddam. They created the conditions, they encouraged communist aggression, and then they looked the other way as outright genocide occurred. Some are still in power, and they are trying to create conditions that would duplicate the 70s. That should not be allowed.
But this is really about President Bush, and how he intends to proceed in Iraq. Even the miniscule minority of congresspeople who actually came out and opposed his decision to invade Iraq before it happened know that we can't just up and leave without some real success. To do otherwise is to invite disaster, not just for the Iraqis, but for our foreign policy efforts, and ultimately for our homeland as well.
Ceding Iraq to another generation of terrorists and giving them another platform to launch renewed strikes against us is far more than irresponsible, it is treasonous. Most in Congress know this and won't go for it, at least not now.
President Bush has been under incredible pressure to deliver results in Iraq, viable results that not only look good on the evening news, but also show that his policy is truly moving forward. He has had setbacks, to be sure, and the new government, especially Prime Minister Malicki, have given him more than his fair share of headaches.
But the president would do well to remember that George Washington wasn't really the first president of the United States, regardless of what children learn in public school history classes. He was just the first under the current Constitution.
John Hanson was the first, under the Articles of Confederation, and there were seven more before Washington came to power. It took the US a while to get it straight, and the country wasn't even under attack from inside and outside as Iraq is. Iraq is harder, and will take more determination.
George Bush is taking a huge gamble, to be sure. But if he were a betting man, I would advise him to bet on the troops. Take off the shackles, suspend these asinine Rules of Engagement, remember that the enemy we are fighting did not sign and does not support the Geneva Convention.
I would advise the president to bet the farm on the American troops. We didn't let this country down during Vietnam, hell we won that war handily. Take a good look at what really happened in the late 60s and early 70s and don't make the mistakes that Nixon and Kissinger made.
Go in big, hit hard, eliminate any forces that oppose us, whether terrorists or internal factions, hold the areas we take, and give that country a real shot at independence and democracy.
Bet on the troops. They are the best, and they will never let this country down. Do that Mr. President, and history will see this as a moment when you passed the supreme test. America is looking for three things from its president. We want a leader, a victor, and a champion.
Bet on the troops and all three will be the legacy of the second Bush presidency.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007