Iraqi Insurgents More Generous Than Democrats

There is one major policy point that the Iraqi insurgents and the "Anti-war" Democratic Party agree on. Both call for a time table for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Yesterday’s big news was that a group of insurgent factions offered a cessation of hostilities if the US was to withdraw from Iraq within two years. Although the 11 insurgent groups involved comprise almost half of the insurgent groups operating in Iraq, they are primarily composed of those who at least moderately oppose targeted attacks against civilians.

The most violent Iraqi insurgent groups, who have joined forces under the banner of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, are not party to the so-called peace offer. The Council is considered the main threat of the insurgency because it has forged an alliance between native insurgent groups and the foreign terrorist organization, al Qaeda. So even if this bogus deal was accepted there would still be little chance of peace because the Iraqi government would be left all by itself against the most ruthless insurgents.

It is ironic that while our enemy has offered a two year withdrawal time table, some politicians from our own Democratic Party have not been as generous. Back in November Congressman John Murtha created an uproar when he demanded that we “immediately redeploy U.S. troops”.

Democrats Russ Feingold and John Kerry proposed a measure that would have had US troops withdraw from Iraq within one year (by July 2007). Thankfully, it was soundly defeated 86-13 in the Senate. Only 12 Democrats and one independent voted for the measure. There wasn’t a single Republican that voted for it.

What is going on here? Over the last year a treasure trove of internal correspondence between al Qaeda leaders was seized by US troops. The contents of these letters revealed al Qaeda’s despair in the face of the determination shown by US troops and the Iraqi government. In spite of this Feingold defended his withdrawal plans by stating that, “what emboldens the enemy is thinking they’ve got us in a trap and we don’t know how to get out”.

But it doesn’t stop there. Ever since the Presidential campaign of 2004 John Kerry has consistently acted against the best interests of our country. During that campaign he insulted every one of our allies by calling them the, “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted”. Kerry even attacked Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi when he made an official visit to the US, the first for the leader of the new interim government.

As a matter of fact, Kerry has adhered to a strategy that puts as much pressure as possible on the US, the coalition and the Iraqi government. His spokeswoman, April Boyd, recently outlined Kerry’s strategy, “John Kerry has been calling for a clear deadline for withdrawal and will not take the heat off the Iraqi leaders to do their job and stand up for their own country”. So his strategy for victory is to use a deadline to put pressure on the new Iraqi government, NOT THE INSURGENTS!!!

The Iraqi people have persevered under a brutal insurgency that kidnaps and murders anyone accused of being a collaborator with US troops. From truck drivers to politicians, they put their necks out on the line every day. It is an insult for Kerry to say that they are not doing enough to save their country when the simple act of going to work can get them killed. There is nothing worse than an arrogant rich man who looks down on people that are struggling under a terrible misfortune and unjustly blames them for their own suffering.

Unwittingly, Russ Feingold underscored the weakness of the strategy behind setting a deadline for withdrawal. He acknowledged that an absolute deadline would be imprudent saying, “We could obviously extend the deadline (if required)”. So in order to score a major political victory all the insurgents would have to do is to lay low until the deadline arrives and then unleash a wave of violence. At that point it would be fairly easy to launch a wave of attacks on unarmed civilians in order to frustrate a US withdrawal. In such a scenario the insurgents would be highly motivated because they will have the chance to score a measurable victory at a cheap price. The results would be immediate.

Every day that US troops stay past such a deadline would be a victory for the insurgents. The “anti-war” movement would be reinvigorated as well. Last week US casualties rose above the 2,500 mark. If we stay past the deadline then each and every day newspapers will have another statistic to place next to the death toll. The media would enthusiastically keep score of the amount of days that US troops have overstayed the deadline. So the creation of a new statistic to embolden the terrorists and “anti-war” protestors would be the result of Feingold’s “victory” strategy.

This speaks volumes about the complete incompetence of these “Anti-war” Democrats. Such leadership in the middle of a war is reprehensible and these politicians do not deserve to represent the American people. I am not calling for their immediate removal from office, but this fall the voters in their districts should take responsibility for the welfare of our country and vote them out.

My terms on this issue are much more generous than what the Iraqi insurgents would give them.