What drives your positions on the issues? Does your position change based on the letter behind the name of the President? Does it change based on which party prefers which position? Do you endorse any policy the party tells you is correct?
Two issues may highlight this: The Drawdown of Troops in Iraq & The Call for Success in Afghanistan. Do you agree with the current schedule for a drawdown of Troops in Iraq? Do you oppose a "surge" in Afghanistan? Are you suddenly stricken with Viet Nam Syndrome concerning Afghanistan? Your position on the Current Conflicts may demonstrate pure partisanship, or pure statesmanship.
Let's start with Iraq. Aside from different labels and pure political pandering, very little has changed
That label means less money. The label doesn't change the situation. Even Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" recognizes there is no difference in the mission. The label "non-combat" is a slap in the face to every Infantryman, every Tanker, every Paratrooper, every Marine, every Special Forces Soldier, and every SeAL that finds themself training an Iraqi Soldier, protecting the Embassy, or in a firefight without combat pay in September 2010. And there is no prophet good enough to predict whether or not there will be combat in Iraq in 2011.
So, if you agreed with the Bush timeline, then you should agree with the Obama time schedule and vice versa. But if you despise political doublespeak and political correctness, then you should take issue with "35,000 - 50,000 Troops" being labeled "non-combat."
Now for Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda did. The Taliban were allies and enablers of Al-Qaeda. The Taliban are just as atrocious as Al-Qaeda. There are NO moderate Taliban. There are moderate Pashtuns, from which the Taliban draw their terrorists and insurgents, but the Taliban are international only in that they are on both sides of the Afghan-Paki border, as is their primary tribe: the Pashtuns.
We are not imperialists. We are not colonizers. We are not dictators. We are not the Soviets, nor the Brits, nor the Ottomans. There are fundamental differences that cause different results. Viet Nam was not lost by our Military. It was lost by our Politicians. It wasn't lost in the rice paddies of Viet Nam but on the streets of Our Own Nation.
If you are against atrocity, if you are for freedom of a Nation to choose their own path, if you are against murder of civilians, then you must stand against the Taliban, against Al-Qaeda, and even against Hamas. They are murderous thugs bent on dictatorial domination through the use of murder and atrocity. They are war criminals.
When I spoke to "My Representatives," my politicians about Iraq and Afghanistan last year two things came out: 1) from the most real member of Congress I met: "The DNC believed they could relive the power derived from the defeatism of the 70's." and 2) to the Democrat side of the aisle: "Vote for Victory" regardless of party.
In this post election era, the Republicans, the VFF, and the IVAW are struggling to identify their positions even as the DNC struggles with the realization that they have absolute power, tempered only by dissent within their own party. And we haven't seen a lot of dissent from within, even from the Blue Dog Democrats.
The IVAW seems to have chosen their battle lines: with Iraq now a win, they've started with lies about Gitmo, and staked out a new found position against Afghanistan. Well, some people are only happy if they're complaining. I personally find it hypocritical that it took them 7 years to come to the conclusion that Afghanistan was a "bad war." Given the DNC calls for support of the War In Afghanistan, even if they refuse to call the broad war "The War On Terror," (More Political Correctness/doublespeak), I hope their desperation for relevancy to finally sink their relevancy.
The VFF and the Republican Party, on the other hand, seem to be still stunned from the results of November 2008. They seem unable to collect their thoughts and figure out their position. Sure, they're against the closure of Gitmo. That's an easy one, made easier by the Administration's idiotic and stubborn decision to close it. But Afghanistan? I'm just as much for Victory in Afghanistan, which means patience, in Afghanistan today as I was in 2003 and in 2007.
Afghanistan is not a simple conflict. It is not a simple Nation. It is not simple terrain. It is not a short war. In 2003, I predicted Iraq would take less time to win than would Afghanistan because Iraq started with Infrastructure, Education, and Structure, whereas Afghanistan had none of that. While I was wrong on the timeline of Success, it appears that I was right on the relative time schedule of Success.
In 2003, we did not know how long the American Resolve would last. In 2006, it appeared we had found out. In 2009, we can only hope that we were wrong. But if your positions on the need to Win against Terrorists in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, then you may want to reconsider if you're a partisan political hack or a patriotic person.
Let's choose National Interests rather than Party Interests.
Stumble It!
