Senator Reid Slams Bush Ahead of War Funding Vote

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has been the source of some frustration to the “out-now” crowd on the Iraq-Nam issue. He has been cautious and thoughtful (or timid and weak, depending on one’s view), but on Monday, he made it clear that the Democrats are prepared to take on the president most directly over funding the wars in Iraq-Nam and Afghanistan. Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, he separated the military from the White House, and did so most effectively.

The key sentences actually appeared at the end of the senator’s remarks, “Winning this war is no longer the job of the American military. Our courageous troops have done everything asked of them and more. They routed the Iraqi military, captured Baghdad in days, deposed and then captured the dictator. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential.” In other words, the troops won the war, and the president lost the peace. As they say in the South, that dog will hunt.

Americans have a hard time accepting defeat in anything. When held within reasonable bounds, it is one of the national traits that makes those goofy, naïve Americans an inspiration around the world. They persist and sometimes surprise everyone (no other nation would have sports fans as dedicated to unsuccessful teams as Chicago Cubs fans are). When let loose as it is now, it makes the Yanks look stubborn and bloodthirsty. Senator Reid’s construction allows the nation to believe that the troops won, and that those darned politicians in “Warshington” screwed it up again. This makes a withdrawal more palatable.

Then, the officers with the stars on their shoulders believe the exact same thing. Senator Reid said, “In short, there is no evidence that the escalation is working -- and it should come as no surprise, because, as General Petraeus has said, the ultimate solution in Iraq is a political one, not a military one. And General Abizaid said, ‘It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future’.” Mr. Bush is hanged on his own rhetoric here, complaining that politicians shouldn’t dictate military strategy, yet his own generals believe the strategy he wants to employ is doomed to fail.

Mr. Reid added, “Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who had commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq says this: ‘Here is the bottom line: Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy...We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and Marine Corps . . . our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission’.”

The Congress is going to fund Mr. Bush’s War, and it’s going to place some kind of timetable in the legislation. Mr. Bush may very well veto the bill. As Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has said, it’s a bill that’s going nowhere. Politically, though, it will ensure that the war remains a Bushevik cause, not a bipartisan one. In time, sufficient Republicans will come to realize that one can be loyal to the troops or to the president but not both. And then, this national disaster will start to end.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home