Détente was thrown out of the window by President Reagan who declared that the US would no longer accept detente, and instead sought to win the Cold War. Military spending grew exponentially and the Soviets simply couldn't keep up. In short, their economy was an illusion and the Soviet Union collapsed from within, though the CIA had no clue as to the true nature of the failures of the economic failings of the Soviet Union.
So, what does this have to do with the current global situation? Everything.
There are more than a few politicians thinking that the war on terror is a sideshow or who think that the US cannot win the war against the terrorists. Together, they believe that if we simply pull back to our own continent, we will be safer.
The problem is that this strategy is no strategy worth pursuing. In fact, Democrats are wrapping this 'strategy' up in the notion of bringing the troops home, and will likely begin using the phrase 'we won, now bring 'em home' after the elections in December.
That would be shortsighted in the extreme as this is the time to press the advantage. Media reports of increased US casualties only tell part of the story. The reason that we're seeing increased casualties at this point is that the US and coalition partners are stepping up their raids along the Syrian border against terrorist and insurgent strongholds. That increased pace of combat means that more troops are coming under fire. However, this is the time to push forward and continue taking the fight to the terrorists while they are on the run. While our forces have suffered casualties, we've given far more than we've received in Iraq.
Ralph Peters seems to think that the Democrats aren't just talking of a policy of détente, but one of defeatism based on domestic political gain:
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.
If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.
And they won't all be conservatives.
UPDATE:
Cardinalpark posting at Tigerhawk's blog [updated 11/22/2005 to correct attribution] has been on the warpath lately with his commentary. He's out slamming Clinton for getting all weak kneed and pandering to the anti-war Left. Tiger's got a point. It really doesn't make any sense considering that Clinton's rhetoric would play right into the hands of the GOP who would exploit all the soundbites and 'positions' staked out by the Democrats. I said 'positions' because they keep changing to suit the political conditions rather than the actual facts on the ground. Reminding the public of this repeated shifting will reinforce the perception that the Democratic party is less serious about national security than the Republicans.
AJ Strata makes an interesting observation that should be obvious to everyone:
Everyone in the country would like the troops home as soon as possible - that doesn’t mean they want to cut and run. That is like because everyone would like to deal with less stress in their lives it means they would prefer to be controlled and ‘taken care of’ by the state so they didn’t have to face reality at any level, spoon fed if you will…
No comments:
Post a Comment