Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Saturday, December 20, 2014
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
Iraq's Civil War Is Irrelevant By: Alan Nathan
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, March 28, 2007


The American heart too frequently out maneuvers the American mind, and does so to an extent that makes us all look laughingly stupid as well as predictably vulnerable to enemy tactics; e.g., pulling out of Iraq because of its developing civil war.

Given that al-Qaeda triggered the large scale Sunni-Shiite conflict when they blew up the Shiites’ Golden Dome Mosque in Samara in February of 2006, why should their maneuvered self-fulfilling prophecy become our obligation to leave? It’s a bit like witnessing arsons that set trees ablaze, and then bitching at the forest rangers for not providing a smoke-free environment.

 

We’ve got to wean ourselves off of these sliding scales, standards and measures that allow adversaries to prop up make-shift justifications and foundations for U.S. actions that would otherwise have none.

 

Why are we so easily mystified by a ploy this self-revealing? The enemy wants us out and accordingly uses its weapons. One weapon of choice is the creation and fomenting of armed civil unrest. Democratic leaders like Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, and their media surrogates told the enemy in advance that such action would be grounds for our lost resolve under the maxim, “once it becomes a civil war, the U.S. will have to leave.” For al-Qaeda, and those Sunnis wanting to regain their lost dictatorial dominance, it made flawless sense to execute such plan. How could they go wrong listening to our own pacifists’ guidance:

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war, and half say the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. (The Washington Post, March 7, 2006, quoting their own poll which had itself reported a heavy majority supporting the invasion of Iraq two and a half years earlier)

 Of course a famous drunken driver had earlier contended:

According to the same New York Times report and other reports, the National Intelligence Estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of next year. The worst case scenario is that Iraq plunges into outright civil war. The best case scenario it says—the best case—is an Iraq with violence still at current levels, with tenuous political and economic stability. (Senator Edward M. Kennedy at The George Washington University, September 27, 2004, selectively paraphrasing the same NIE he had earlier dismissed as illegitimate because they were proven wrong on WMD)

If we surrender because of that which is nothing more than a byproduct of the enemy’s resistance, than we have very specifically reinforced their sense of what constitutes an upper hand. It’s disquieting to witness the devolving academia afflicting our leaders, press and citizenry as it relates to this tactic. We seem to have adopted guidelines of assessments based upon parameters established by those who have a vested interest in our demise.

We are truly at the mercy of the least talented, anti-war political hierarchy in our nation’s history. Their rationale for surrender is the one given to them by the enemy – the same one they tragically helped encouraged.

 

Fortunately for all of us, including those not yet better enlightened, the troop surge shall not be deterred by the House’s recent bribe-based 218-212 vote that enforces war benchmarks under the cover of an appropriations bill. It hasn’t a viable chance of passing muster in the Senate. Even if by some deranged contortion of chance such passage did occur, it still wouldn’t have the votes required to over-ride a presidential veto.

 

Intriguingly enough, the most factual fail-safe is that it’s unconstitutional to use targeted funding restrictions and contingencies to circumvent the President’s separated powers as commander-in-chief when it comes to troop assignments and battlefield decisions.

 

Strangely comforting, however, is this very same pressure now so calamitously structured. The president and his team are thankfully pushed in a position where they must demonstrate greater competence in their prosecution of the war.

 

In the final analysis, should the surge fail, war opponents will enjoy increased confidence to play their more legitimate check and balance card; and that’s simply reducing the war funding across the board or cutting it altogether.

Win the war now Mr. President, before your own people hand you defeat!

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


Alan Nathan, a combative centrist and "militant moderate," a columnist, and the nationally syndicated talk show host of "Battle Line With Alan Nathan" on the Radio America Network.


We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com