Democrats--A Disloyal Majority

The votes on Iraq by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and other politicians that make up the new Democratic

majority in the Congress represent a mirror image of the bad qualities

that they use to splat-paint President Bush -- ignorance, arrogance and

unconstitutionality. So the Iraq war was unconstitutional and based on

poor intelligence! -- Democrats were not elected to replay the tape of an

old, bad movie but to set a new course. Lacking such a strategy and

contrary to the Constitution, they try to play Commander-in-Chief and

micro-manage foreign policy. They foolishly ignore new and better

intelligence. They arrogantly presume to misread and judge the

President’s intentions, as if they are still driven by the same

“anti-Bush” theme that got them elected in ‘06.

One can’t help but recall the “loyal opposition” that helps a democratic

system to work. Democrats have gone from one extreme to the other. Most

of them were so “loyal,” as a largely unquestioning minority from

’03-‘05, they followed the President like lemmings over a cliff, voting

to hand him power, a blank check, to execute a “war of choice.” Now they

can’t even provide any benefit of doubt as they act like a disloyal

majority. Mean-while, there’s room for doubt, lots of it. Consider some

key questions:

v     Does the President’s new, “Petraeus” strategy embrace learning from

experience? [YES, but Democrats don’t even allow the question, let alone

the possibility that the President is capable of learning anything}

v     Is the new strategy the right one even though arrived at belatedly?

[YES, for many reasons rooted in fact and history, but Democrats ignore

the possibility. They’re not prepared to talk “strategy,” lacking any but

a defeatist idea of what it might be.]

v     How can we hand responsibility for Iraq to Iraqis without appearing

to withdraw in defeat with our tail (and no onions) between our legs? [As

a majority, Democrats now have prime responsibility to face the

consequences of our being in Iraq, but do they not offer defeatist

answers to this key question?]

The fact of the matter is that we have not been defeated in Iraq -- nor

can we be -- unless we choose to defeat ourselves through knee-jerk,

defeatist overreactions to media coverage. We have constructed several

massive military bases in Iraq. There they will remain for years to come

until the country stabilizes with some form of democratic government in

place. We can move U.S. Army and National Guard troops out of harm’s way.

We can adopt a patient, selective, unpredictable “shock and awe”

strategy.

Al Queda-in-Iraq’s only hope is to take power locally in some Iraqi

cities and towns. There is no way they can take over the whole country.

If the Petraeus strategy fails or its successes are spotty, let us

withdraw to our bases and offshore floating fortresses in the Persian

Gulf. Let it be known throughout Iraq that Islamist-fascist control of

any locality will subject that place to massive assault by U.S. Marines

and Special Forces – at times and places of our choosing. Nationally, we

can continue to support the Iraqi national government with military and

non-military foreign aid – if they want our help and can honor

performance benchmarks for its use.  

Democrats have consistently refused to assume responsibility for what may

happen in Iraq from this point forward, even though some students of the

Middle East, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans point to potentially

“disastrous” consequences if defeatist Democratic policies are followed.

Unfortunately, as their recent votes reveal, Rep. Shea-Porter and most

other members of the new majority are disloyal legislators, representing

polls and political opportunism at the country’s expense.

            PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., Fremont, 895-8487, International

Consulting Economist who expects to soon return to Iraq to help provide

non-military, development assistance. 4/28/07.