Letter to the Editor,
Springfield News-Leader
07 August 2007
| Obama's Sword (08/03/07) | 'Stab in the back' belief dismays (08/07/07) |
|
Within the
past several weeks, presidential aspirant Barack Obama has announced that he
would meet with America's enemies and attack America's friends. Those
interested in a dramatic departure from Bush/Cheney need look no further. (bilge snipped) Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, famously declared in April that "the war is lost." What a time to be surrendering! After years of misguided policy and ineffective military strategy, the U.S. forces under Gen. David Petraeus are finally making progress. Anbar and Diyala provinces, once largely under enemy control, have shifted allegiance. The Sunni tribal leaders are now helping U.S. forces against al Qaeda. Shiite death-squad activity and executions in Baghdad have significantly decreased since January. Violence in Anbar has subsided, and normal life is resuming. As former White House strategist Peter Wehner reported in The Wall Street Journal: "Since the start of the year, Baqubah, al Qaim, Haditha, Hit, Ramadi, Habbaniya, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, and Arab Jabour have all been liberated from al Qaeda control. Arms caches are being found at more than three times the rate of a year ago. Intelligence tips are sharply up. We are also seeing signs of normalcy return to Baghdad, including soccer leagues, amusement parks and vibrant market places. More than half of Baghdad is now under the control of coalition or Iraqi Security Forces." The war has been far more difficult, frustrating and long than the administration anticipated. But the Democrats' answer is to declare defeat and give up just when, at last, there is real reason for optimism. The Democrats believe that defeat in Iraq would be George W. Bush's defeat. It would not. It would be America's defeat. Mona Charen |
I was dismayed to find Mona Charen's Aug. 4 column
("Angering allies is worst course of action for war") labeling as a
defeatist anyone who dares question the White House's conduct of the war.
But not surprised. Charen's "stab in the back" argument against White House critics is the same old tactic employed by German nationalists after World War I. Their premise was simple: they claimed the German Empire had actually been winning World War I until unpatriotic Allied sympathizers "stabbed Germany in the back." Germany lost the war not because it was beaten, but due to a lack of patriotism. In fact, Germany had no choice but surrender in 1918. But the nationalists repeated their "stab in the back" lie until too many Germans believed it, with disastrous consequences for both Germany and the world. Fast forward to 2007. Based on a Wall Street Journal article by the White House's former "resident thinker," Peter Wehner, Charen now detects progress toward victory in Iraq. I would trust Charen's judgment more if she could find sources outside the White House. That is, besides the administration which declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003 and claimed in 2005 that Iraq's insurgency was "in the last throes." In fact, trusting the White House is what got Americans into this quagmire. Every American understands that "a defeat in Iraq would be America's defeat." Nobody wants such a defeat, but ignoring this possibility is idiotic. Refusing to plan for this possibility is criminal. Still, whatever happens in Iraq, patriotic Americans - of all political persuasions - will unite to hold our nation together. We have always overcome our political differences before in time of crisis, and I have faith that we will do so again. Nobody is stabbing America in the back. Charen's suggestion that the Democratic Party welcomes defeat in Iraq doesn't help matters at all. Rather than trotting out the old "stab in the back" argument, she could help America more by sticking to the realistic, nonpartisan, interpretation of facts. I don't doubt in the least that Charen loves America. But she certainly sounds far more concerned for her political party. Joe Hughes, Springfield |