January 4, 2006
The Greater Wartime Threat
were put to shame on December 15, 2005. The Iraqi elections they have
made possible yielded a voter turnout that eclipsed American
participation in federal elections over several decades. Not even the
2004 presidential election, which proved to be one of the most heated in
U.S. history, was enough to generate a voter turnout comparable to that
of the Iraqis’.
old democracy the Bush administration established in Iraq has clearly
taken solid root, as participation across ethnic and religious lines
proved the existence of a national consensus on the concept of freedom.
voted in the Sunni Triangle. They voted in the Kurdish north and the
Shiite south. They voted in Britain, Austria, Turkey and a dozen other
countries. They voted in Dearborn, Michigan and McLean, Virginia. Iraqis
also voted in Syria. Not even Syrians can vote in Syria.
officially joined the global league of democracies. It sits atop the
Arab world as a shining example of representative government, although
it has yet to achieve total security. Iraqi troops are increasingly
taking the lead in conducting security operations and securing cities,
and reconstruction is proceeding at an accelerated rate. Seven out of 10
Iraqis believe their lives are going well, although they do not include
Saddam Hussein. This exception comes to the disappointment of French
President Jacques Chirac, whom the Baath idol recently praised as a
If he looks
hard enough, Saddam might find a few more friends in the Democratic
Party of the United States. Despite all of the superb improvements and
splendid progress in Iraq, our friends in the minority party have not
been so keen on the idea of success in that country. From among their
number has come, to help the dictator, former Attorney General Ramsey
Clark to serve on his defense team, because attempting to discredit
American efforts in Iraq from inside the Beltway is not enough – it also
has to be done from Baghdad proper.
America is engaged in a struggle to prevent brutal terrorists from
taking over Iraq, Democrats are working overtime to achieve their own
takeover of Congress. Whether or not it is true, they sincerely believe
that a Democratic victory at the polls in 2006 cannot be achieved along
with an American victory in Iraq. And it is clear that of the two
options, many if not most of them have chosen the one that threatens the
security of America and the stability of the world.
It was not
long ago when Howard Dean proudly proclaimed, “the idea that the United
States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.” Never mind
the fact that improvements in Iraq and the optimism of both high and
low-ranking members of the American military on the ground contradict
Dean’s words. But if repeated loudly and widely enough, this sentiment can become a
self-fulfilling prophesy. While it is unfathomable, based on our
successes so far, to lose the war against the ever-weakening terrorists
on the ground in Iraq, it is quite possible for the inevitable victory
to be sabotaged from Capitol Hill.
“But he is
not representative of our Party’s views on the war,” Democrats would say
about Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Even if that
were the case, there are not many other Democrats offering much else.
Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha, supposedly one of the most
hawkish Democrats in Congress and now an anti-war hero, has launched a
rhetorical campaign seeking the immediate withdrawal of American troops
from Iraq. With the backing of other Democratic friends, he has set out
to convince Americans to support the one policy action that would lead
to the most destabilizing situation in the world - an Iraq in anarchy.
Murtha has become a national embarrassment and a threat to the country.
Surely, we are grateful to him for serving his country valiantly in the
past, and are quite impressed with the medals he has earned. But the
fact of the matter is that he is advocating a policy that would, without
a doubt, and to any mind with an analytical capacity higher than that a
doorknob, pave the way for civil war, genocide and the unstoppable
spread of terrorism across the Muslim world and around the globe. This
prospect far outweighs Murtha’s past contributions to the United States,
and as such the man deserves no respect for his recklessness.
It is one
thing to criticize certain decisions taken by the Bush administration,
including ones concerning such issues as troop levels and post-war
planning. It is another thing to falsely claim that the President
purposely lied, and more outrageously, to urge an immediate withdrawal
for immediate political gain. Even if an immediate withdrawal does earn
Democrats a majority in Congress, they forget that they would also be
running a country that is being constantly attacked by terrorists at
home, and facing far more emboldened enemies abroad. Yet not even this
calamitous prospect can deter leaders in the Democratic Party from doing
all they can to satiate their hunger for power.
© 2006 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
This is Column # PI2.
Request permission to publish here.