Editor’s note: In breaking news, the Senate did not advance this resolution, voting 56-34 in its favor. Sixty votes were needed to advance it. Seven Republicans broke ranks and nine did not vote; meanwhile, save for Joe Lieberman, all 50 healthy Democrats voted “aye”. I found it most interesting (and it buttresses my point below) that Sen. Harry Reid stated that any subsequent actions would not be nonbinding. I’m not surprised.
I actually hadn’t planned on doing this chapter quite so soon, but yesterday’s vote in the House on a non-binding resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) goaded me into action. First of all, I’m quite disappointed that our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, was one of 17 Republicans who broke ranks and voted for the resolution. So I wrote him an e-mail, which reads as follows:
As you’re probably aware, you and I have had a number of policy disagreements over the course of the last two years I’ve resided in Maryland. It’s apparent from your voting record and the words that I write on my website that my political philosophy is quite a bit to the right of yours even though we both are elected officials in the same party.
However, I’ve not been so disappointed with a vote you’ve cast than the one you cast today on H. Con. Res. 63. In your press release, you tell us that “(o)ur troops deserve to know that their elected leaders back home care enough about their lives to make sure that their mission is justified and their cause is just. As a former Marine platoon sergeant, I know I hoped for that when I was in Vietnam.” But my contention is that the majority Democrats are going to use this resolution as the first step on a slippery slope to start squeezing our forces in Iraq; and knowing this, the enemy can bide its time and wait until President Bush has no choice but to withdraw, handing the enemy a victory they surely could not accomplish on the battlefield in a fair fight.
In June 1970 the Senate passed a similar resolution regarding the Viet Nam war. This resolution, known as the Cooper-Church Amendment, ended funding for U.S. troops and advisers in Cambodia and Laos, banned combat operations over Cambodian airspace to support Cambodian forces without prior congressional approval, and cut funding to support Southern Vietnamese forces stationed outside of Vietnam. It was a small step and seemed harmless enough because it would have no real effect on American troops fighting within Viet Nam. (In fact, the original bill died because of a veto threat, only to have a slightly modified measure pass a lame-duck Congress that December.)
But Cooper-Church opened the door, and once the GOP was blown out in the 1974 elections, Democrats felt free to cut off funding from the Viet Nam war entirely. We all now know what tragedies awaited the people of Southeast Asia in the years immediately after our shameful withdrawal. After Saigon fell, did it not make you wonder as a Viet Nam veteran whether the lives of friends and fellow servicemen that were lost in Southeast Asia were sacrificed in vain?
My stance on this war has also been in support of our troops. But further, I support their overall mission and I support the President’s prayerful handling of this mission. I have to believe that President Bush made the decision to add more troops after consulting with his top military brass, and decided as Commander-in-Chief that it would be the best course of action to take. No President has ever handled a war flawlessly, if he did, we would have lost no lives while attaining victory. To me, the increase in troop strength combined with more aggressive rules of engagement when it comes to Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs would go a long way toward victory.
Moreover, we face an enemy that does not deal fairly at the diplomatic table; where lying and deceit are acceptable tactics in their effort to spread radical Islam globally, and sacrifice of one’s self is considered noble as a shortcut to Paradise. The only way we can defeat this sort of enemy is to wipe them out in whatever manner necessary to demoralize them into surrender. Words will not do it, but in my mind military action has some chance of success. But by your vote today, you’ve made our nation take a step backward in this fight, and it’s a sign of weakness our enemies will surely find a way to take advantage of.
It also bears repeating that we were warned at the start about the time this effort would take. Noted President Bush on September 20, 2001:
“This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.”
Americans have seemed to forget that these words were spoken just over five years ago. We also seem to forget that several other countries have felt the sting of radical Islamic terror in the last few years, with major events in Great Britain, Indonesia, France, and Spain just to name a few. With the exception of the British, none of these countries have (or had in Spain’s case) a significant number of combat personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan, the main military fronts in this war.
By its nature, this war is totally different than the “Cold War” of my youth. However, the fear of nuclear annihilation is still present. Instead of the fallout shelters and drills of the 1950’s that were to prepare us for a missile attack from the Soviet Union, the threat is now just as great of a so-called “suitcase nuke” or “dirty bomb” rendering a city uninhabitable and costing untold American lives. Additionally, China has demonstrated an ability to destroy satellites, which could be another tool terrorists engage eventually. With warm relations between China and Iran and Tehran’s support of radical Islamic groups we’re currently engaged with in Iraq, it’s not difficult to imagine this technology becoming another weapon in the Islamic arsenal.
But Democrats seem to be in favor of diplomacy rather than solving this through the aggressive use of force. I heard this point made Thursday as Bill Reddish on WICO radio had a short interview with Maryland’s junior Senator Ben Cardin. Senator Cardin made the following point:
“Sacnctions will work in Iran if we have the support of the international community.”
I placed the emphasis on “if” because, as was proven in the “Oil-For-Food” program and in the assistance Russia and China have given the Iranians in their war efforts, that the so-called international community will cheat when they feel it’s in their best interests to. Combine that with the stated tendency of radical Islamists (and for that matter Communists like North Korea) to extend one hand at the negotiating table while readying the knife in the other hand for that stab in the back, it’s clear in my eyes that the only way diplomacy works is when one side is completely subdued and has its terms of surrender dictated to them.
Yesterday the Patriot Post published an essay that enlightened me about the two main and competing sects of Islam. I found it interesting that just 10 percent of Muslims subscribe to the Shi’ite sect, but that 10 percent are a majority in five nations. These five include both Iraq and Iran. So I looked a bit further and found that on the other hand, the Salafists (or Wahhabists) consider themselves as a purer form of the majority Sunni sect. This is the brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and to which Osama bin Laden subscribes. Also, the Taliban in Afghanistan are another subsect of Sunnis. In essence, our fight against radical Islam is against a small portion of the entire Islamic world – however, that small portion tends to congregate in countries that are some of the leaders against us in the Long War.
Because of this factor, we will likely be fighting these enemies for quite a spell; thus a difficult question arises as to what sort of help we can get. One theory I have on this is that we need to identify and support Islamic nations that are more moderate to help in this battle. To me, this is part of the reason we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, making an effort to install leadership that is more friendly to our interests. Other countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, and Kuwait have also been helpful in providing forward bases for us to work from.
It’s here that I depart from the more mainstream conservative movement. Part of reinventing Republicanism is facing the fact that we are the source of freedom for the globe, and a healthy chunk of the world economy. Thus, our national interests transcend our borders and isolationism cannot succeed in the world today. While we do need to secure our borders better and work on free but fair trade (more on these subjects in future chapters) we need to realize that having American troops in far-flung places on the globe is going to be a fact for the foreseeable future. It’s one thing that our Founders may not have thought of in their era.
For example, George Washington opined in his Farewell Address:
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
But he then stated:
“Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Where I differ with Washington solely lies in the fact that we are not in a “detached and distant situation” anymore. As I spoke of earlier, our interests are now global and our foreign policy must reflect this fact. To this end, we must do whatever it takes and resort to whichever “temporary alliances” are needed to subdue the threat posed by radical Islam.
I do have one other main point to make. Some are of the opinion that we need to pull out of the United Nations, and I tend to agree with them.
Unfortunately, by its nature the UN is populated with all nations, regardless of their devotion to the freedom of their citizens. A tyrannical nation like China has an equal say and veto power there as we do, therefore I believe it’s truly not in our best interest to be fully invested in such an organization. Add in the fact that it’s a bloated and relatively corrupt bureaucracy saddled by its inertia (hmm, sounds like the federal government) and the benefits from divesting ourselves from the UN grow. After all, the UN did nothing to a tyrant who violated seventeen of their own resolutions until we took it upon ourselves to build a coalition to take care of the problem, which we solved. Truly we have a better solution in “going it alone” if we must than having to beg for a hall pass from the international community.
