Jules Crittenden: Another Grunt’s Rant on Iraq
Am I wrong, or am I wrong? It looks like there’s going to be a Constitutional crisis on the war in Iraq – a showdown between Congress and the President. Congress has voted to tie military funding to a timetable for withdrawal, and the President has vowed to veto their bill. That will put the burden back on Congress to reconsider legislation that will fund the war, i.e. support the troops, and if they refuse, the Defense Department’s budget is going to take a hit.
The Democrats insist that what they’re doing is obeying the will of the people, as demonstrated by the November elections that gave them a majority in both houses. What a crock that is! There never was any referendum on the war– just a straight election for representatives in the House and Senate, some of whom supported the war, and some of whom didn’t. It seems to me that the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, now think they can ram a surrender down our throats in the name of the people, even though there has never been a specific referendum on making a stand or withdrawing in Iraq. So, who is right?
We’ll see.
Whether you like our being in Iraq or not, it’s clear that most of the people want “out.” After all, who would ever want to fight a war? But if push comes to shove, would Congress stop supporting the troops, or vote to cut off the funding necessary to continue the mission, or vote to surrender over there? I doubt it.
But that’s what the Democrats are trying to do.
They’re trying to pull the plug on our efforts, not by voting to end the war, or expressly cutting off any spending for it, but by suggesting that funding be tied to a specific timetable for withdrawal.
And that, in my mind, is surrender. As soon as you tell the enemy that you are going to leave, all they have to do is sit back and wait for you to leave. And, if they really hate you, they can start sniping at you as you go, when you’re most vulnerable to an attack. A retrograde maneuver is one of the most difficult tactical missions an army is ever faced with. A retreat, and that’s what this would be, requires stealth, continual pressure on the forces opposing yours, and lots of political spin.
What the Democrats are doing is akin to what we did in Vietnam by signing a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese, tantamount to bailing out on our allies’ without their concurrence, then departing with absolutely no intention of ever coming back, no matter what the North Vietnamese did. Congress also cut off financial support for South Vietnam after our departure. And sure as hell, as soon as we left, the North Vietnamese attacked south in full force, and for two more years, the two sides pounded each other until the more determined North, supported by Russia and China, won the war. And we veterans here at home who had fought and seen so many of our buddies die over there, had to keep our mouths shut and just take it.
And we felt the shame of defeat. Not a defeat we’d suffered, but a defeat of our national will. And that enraged me and made me feel ashamed. It took me more than forty years to get over it, and I still simmer when I think about it.
And we’re going to do it again, thanks to the Democrats in Congress.
On the other hand – and I have to say this to keep my sanity — in a democracy, the will of the people must prevail, and if the majority of our population really want us to leave Iraq, then we should. But has there been a national debate about staying or leaving, fighting or folding, winning or losing? No. Has there been a definitive referendum on the war? No. And have the American people been given a chance, other than anecdotally, to make a statement on whether we want to withdraw from Iraq and face the consequences, or whether we want to tough it out, and win the bloody thing? No.
So I ask you, where do the Democrats come up with this national mandate bullshit?
Whole cloth, baby. Whole cloth.
