Misconceptions and Fixes

If one looks at the current crop of Democratic candidates for President of the US, one would see policy positions on Iraq that are not all that different than the anti-war and anti-US positions found in socialist groups like ANSWER.

This is not the way for the Democratic Party to win the election in 2004. It is a recipe for disaster. The party appears to be pinning its hopes on US failure, both domestically and abroad. The party hopes that the US runs into trouble in Iraq, that casualties increase, and that the President changes his tack on Iraq and other issues to be more in line with their own defeatists positions.

I therefore propose a new, bold position for the Democrats to point towards and utilize in their political machinations.

Charge that the President has not done enough to safeguard the US by slacking off the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and using the wrong mix of troops for counter insurgency missions that are central to rooting out terrorist cells in both countries). By suggesting that major combat was over in May, the President let everyone relax, which is the wrong way to approach the war.

It was precisely at that time that the US should have been dropping the hammer on Tikrit, which was home to Saddam and his boys. His loyalists never stood around to fight before the coalition forces got to Baghdad, and most ran off to Tikrit and the Sunni Triangle, which is where most of the casualties are concentrated. Residents of Tikrit have not seen US military might displayed in all its awesome and terrible might. They did not see shock and awe because the campaign was called off too soon.

It took the foot off the throat of the regime and gave hope to the hopeless. The President is right in that respect. The terrorists and the Ba'athists are hopeless; it's just that we've got to convince them militarily that it is the case. This means potentially causing more civilian casualties in rooting terrorists out from civilian populations, but it must be done.

Next, Democrats must argue that the amount spent on the reconstruction is not enough. That's right - not enough. Democrats have been arguing that the Administration is spending too much money, but that's a completely misguided policy, and I think that is making some of the candidates uneasy (Gephardt and Liberman). The $87 billion package included $67 for the military, and $20 for reconstruction of Iraq, in the form of grants.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic