Democrats quick with insults, slow on strategy

The war in Iraq is not going as smoothly as originally predicted. Every day, Shiites and… The war in Iraq is not going as smoothly as originally predicted. Every day, Shiites and Sunnis wage an appalling war on each other in the name of their respective faiths. In a bold attempt to end this sectarian violence, President Bush has suggested an increase in the level of American troops deployed in Iraq.

Bush recently laid out his plan for a troop increase in a speech from the White House. The plan calls for approximately 17,500 additional troops to be stationed in Baghdad and 4,000 more troops to be sent to Iraq’s Anbar province, a haven for Sunni Muslim terrorists and insurgents.

The troop surge isn’t the only surge being talked about in Washington. Recently, there has been a surge in opposition to the plan. As it can be expected, Bush’s plan, almost instantly, drew tremendous opposition from Democratic power players.

Democrats seem unified in trying to stop, or at least limit, the troop increase or the possibility of future increases. But when it comes to suggesting possible alternatives, Democrats just can’t seem to agree. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who has recently come under fire from anti-war liberals, has proposed a bill that would place a cap on the level of troops allowed to be deployed in Iraq at 130,000.

The bill would also call for a refusal to fund Iraqi security forces if sectarian militias remain a part of those forces, and it would require benchmarks for both the Iraqi government and the Bush administration, leading to the phased redeployment of troops and a stronger diplomatic effort in the region.

Sen. Christopher Dobb, D-Conn., has proposed a similar resolution that would additionally require the president to obtain congressional authorization for any increase in troops, which would surely limit any troop increases considering the current makeup of Congress.

In the House, most Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have signed onto a bill drafted by Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., that seeks a redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq, but would keep a quick reaction force nearby.

And of course, the 47 members of the House “Out of Iraq” caucus all denounced the increase, instead demanding a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Rumors have also been floating around about the possibility of cuts in funding for the war as a means to stop any further escalation.

Almost all Democrats acknowledge that Iraq is a mess; some go as far as to call it a civil war. It is clear Democrats don’t support the troop increase as a means to help the situation. But, besides the irrational idea of a complete withdrawal, what do Democrats propose as a possible alternative?

Absolutely nothing.

If Sen. Clinton and co. are so enlightened, why don’t they agree on a plan instead of offering nothing but criticisms? The answer is simple: accountability. Democratic strategists have decided that if they commit to a plan and it does not work out, then they share some of the blame. If they just criticize and offer nothing, the complete blame for a failed conflict rests on Republicans and President Bush.

“There is a risk that becoming more assertive on Iraq means that they will share the responsibility and potentially share the blame,” P.J. Crowley, of the Center for American Progress, said in an ABC News story.

It is obvious that some Democrats just don’t care what is best for the Iraqi people, the Middle East and America. They see this as a means to better position themselves for the next election – cough, Sen. Clinton, cough – instead of a real conflict with real consequences.

A recent Fox News poll asked, “Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week [the troop increase] to succeed?” Overall, 22 percent of respondents answered “No” and 15 percent answered “Don’t know.” Of the people who identified themselves as Democrats, 34 percent said “No” and another 15 percent “Didn’t Know” compared with 11 percent and 10 percent respectively for Republicans and 19 percent and 17 percent respectively for Independents.

That means that one third of the population and half of all Democrats actually want the United States to fail, or just aren’t sure. Today’s Democrats, politicians and voters alike are hell-bent on the complete ruin of President Bush and the Republican Party. But, the consequences of a U.S. defeat would be horrific for Iraq, the Middle East and the world.

President Bush is showing huge amounts of courage by sending more than 20,000 troops into a very unpopular and costly war, while having one of the lowest approval ratings ever. He knows that the present situation is less than desirable. But unlike congressional Democrats, Bush and his fellow Republicans are making the tough decisions needed to secure a victory for the United States, but more importantly for Iraq and its future.

What happened to the end of partisan politics? E-mail Joe at jjm43@pitt.edu.