War in Iraq

As I watch the latest gyrations of Sen. Barack Obama from Illinois as he attempts to produce a coherent presidential policy on the war - one that will not enrage his left-wing base and likewise not alienate the rest of the country - I must conclude that he really has no idea of what is going on.

When you get down to it, this is basically a state senator who got thrown in the deep end of the pool in Washington DC a couple of years ago and, while still learning to swim with no bottom underneath, has been treated to the position where he can learn to swim with sharks in the middle of a typhoon. Some people think he's handsome, he can deliver a strong scripted speech, he alleges to be a Christian and he's a family man. If those are qualifications for the most responsible and challenging job in the world, I have several men in my neighborhood who could say as much. Now, others have said this before and been pilloried for it, but facts exist whether we like them or not. If Obama were not black, he would not even have been supported for the nomination, much less become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Obama proposes to lose the war in Iraq because this is what his left-wing base, the people who have given him $300 million, want him to do. Absent the flowery language and puff pieces from the "mainstream" media, who make no secret that they want a liberal president, all of his various proposals guarantee this outcome. You do not tell your wartime enemy exactly what you are going to do and when unless you want to lose. Set a timetable for withdrawal, and any person with a functioning brain will know that the enemy merely waits you out, confident of victory when the time comes. How this man, who is supposed to be brighter than most as an Ivy League lawyer, along with practically every Democrat leader in the nation, cannot see this obvious truth boggles the mind. Unless, of course, he and they know it just as well as everyone else and are counting on it to insure our defeat. For some reason, liberals do not like it when America wins wars and work diligently to see that we don't. Viet Nam is a case in point.

I am always fascinated by remarks from liberals that go like, "if we had known that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, we should not have invaded Iraq." Note the mixed tenses, which is a favorite tactic of theirs. Why not say, "if we had known that Adolph Hitler was going to start the worst war in history, we should have sent someone to kill him when he was doing a painting job during his 20's." It's all nonsense. Hindsight is 20/20 and no ordinary human can use it to create policy, but some can learn from history.

The fact is that there was remarkable consensus among intelligence services from many nations that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace, such as it was. We went in with what every invading army always has - imperfect intelligence. Something Democrats never mention, as though it is unworthy of comment, is that some six years later, with the lowest loss of American lives in any war in history, 15 million people are free of one of the worst tyrants ever to subjugate his people and they are on their way, in fits and starts and with great discord and imperfection, toward creating a functioning democratic form of government. If they succeed, and they seem determined to do so, theirs will be the only one in the Middle East, except for Israel and Turkey.

Obama will cheerfully throw all this away. His left-wing base will not allow him to do anything else, and without their help he cannot win the presidency. So what's 15 million lives compared to the Democrats taking full control, all three branches, of the United States federal government? It's a matter of priorities.

I have nothing but the highest respect for Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. He is our only generally recognized war hero, although there are many among the troops who are never mentioned by our allegedly impartial press. Now, I don't expect him to do this, but I would love to see the following: One week before the general election, Gen. Petraeus goes on national TV (assuming they would give him any time!) and states that, if Barack Obama is elected President of the United States, he will immediately retire from the U.S. Army. His reason will be simple - President Obama will require that he order his troops to engage in actions that will lose the war in Iraq. He will then have the choice to either disobey his commander-in- chief, quite unthinkable - or issue orders to which he strenuously objects in order to achieve an objective that he strongly opposes. He cannot do the first, so he must do the latter.

Like I say, Gen. Petraeus is a man of great honor. I do not expect him to do this. But, in a way, I'm not sure how a man of honor could do anything else.

JDK