AM I the only one who's noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week.
Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won't bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan - expanding that war. (He's discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.)
And the left's quiet as a graveyard at midnight.
Where are the outraged protests from MoveOn or the DailyKos? I
thought the extreme left felt sorry for our service members in harm's
way and wanted to reunite them with their families.
We all know exactly what happened. The left has nothing
against foreign wars (as long as they don't have to fight in person).
They just want to pick our wars themselves.
The problem with Iraq wasn't that America toppled Saddam Hussein,
but that George W. Bush did it. I've been saying it for years: Had Bill
Clinton done the job, the left would've celebrated him as the greatest
liberator since Abraham Lincoln.
While we're on the subject of Bush-Cheney, am I the only one who's noticed that Sen. Barack Obama's
stolen the key pages from their playbook? He refuses to admit any
serious mistakes, skips over uncomfortable facts and won't let the
media get danger-close.
And it's interesting that, while Obama remains committed to
abandoning Iraq for partisan political reasons, he otherwise sounds
more aggressive about using force than anyone since Bush's "Bring it
Those who know nothing of war - and who decline to serve - kind of
like a nice little invasion of their own. Forget those pesky human and
financial costs - as long as the left can have its own war, war's great!
"Support our troops, bring them home" just may go down as the second-most-cynical slogan in history, right behind Arbeit macht frei.
Now that the (truly base) Democratic base has decided our troops
really aren't all that stressed, don't need a break and should move out
sharply to fight Obama's wars (before the guy's even elected), I'm
starting to feel like a peacenik.
Yes, we could use more combat forces in Afghanistan. And we do have
to come to terms with what a senior officer in-country calls "our
Pakistan ulcer." But I'm not quite ready to invade Pakistan without
weighing the consequences and costs. (Can't we just send Ariana
Those who want war should do their part at some point in their lives - and that doesn't mean sitting in your basement blogging in your underwear at 3 a.m.
So here are three straightforward questions for all the
march-in-step lefties who howled, "Support our troops, bring them
home!" before their new messiah decided that war's not so bad, after
* Given that your candidate acknowledges the need for more combat troops in Afghanistan, will you enlist and do your part? Or do you expect other young Americans to continue to bleed in your place?
* If your man is elected president and orders ground troops into
Pakistan - which could lead to a much wider conflict - will you enlist
and do your part? We'll need a lot more troops to occupy those badlands.
* If the next president yanks our troops out of Iraq, all the
progress disintegrates, Iran moves in and we have to re-invade to clean
up the mess, will you enlist and do your part?
I know, I know: Educated people like you are too smart and too
important to serve in uniform. The military's for dummies, for losers.
Serious players stay home and blog and bitch over double espressos.
Inhabitants of the left-wing blogosphere, have you no shame? Was
your pacifism nothing more than a hipster pose? Bush is on the way out
- are your principles leaving with him? Have you stopped to wonder if
BHO might not be your LBJ?
You told us that "War doesn't change anything," and "War is never the answer." Shouldn't you be lobbying your candidate to give peace a chance?
Shame, shame, shame. You've elevated hypocrisy to an art form.
How about a new slogan: "Support our troops: Enlist!"
Ralph Peters' new book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."