Senator Reid Shames His Office

Joe Bell

On January 8, 2006, CNN reported, “An Arabic language news network has aired a video of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, in which he called on U.S. President George W. Bush to admit defeat in Iraq.”

Bush has not conceded defeat but on April 19, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, agreed with the al Qaeda leader and said, “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything …”

A negotiated settlement on Iraq may now be achievable between the Democrats and al Qaeda since both sides agree on the outcome of the conflict.

Reid’s remark came in the wake of an April 16 ABC News/Washington Post poll that reported 51 percent of the public believes the U.S. will lose the war in Iraq. The Washington Post said, “Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting - in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.”

The poll, coupled with Reid’s statement, surely provides a lift to those who wish America ill. In times of war it is always heartening when one’s opponent publicly admits the battle is hopeless and that winning isn’t important. Al Qaeda in Iraq is neither confused about its purpose nor does it doubt the significance of the conflict. On May 31, 2006, the Asia Times reported, “Al-Qaeda believes that it and its allies can only defeat the United States in a ‘long war’, one that allows the Islamists to capitalize on their extraordinary patience, as well as on their enemies’ lack thereof.”

Wars are not fought according to a timeline no matter how impatient one side may be to see it brought to a conclusion. The Democrat’s strategy is simple: Regardless of how this war ends let’s just get it over with. Having been bombarded with such rhetoric and fed myths like “there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” and “the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war against terrorism” it is no wonder that much of the America public is confused and anxious to withdraw.

The poll reported three-fourths of those surveyed say the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq is unacceptable. Is there a number that would be acceptable? The Department of Defense reports, as of April 23, there have been 3,320 U.S. deaths in Iraq. Would it have been acceptable if the number were 2,000? Or 1,000? Or 25? In World War II, U.S. forces suffered more than 290,000 battle deaths and 670,000 wounded. The battle wounded outnumbers the population of Memphis (650,000). The number of battle deaths totals more than half the population of Wichita (344,000). There is no “acceptable” number of deaths in war, certainly not to the families whose loved ones are among the casualties. But when faced with a determined and lethal enemy, the only options are capitulation or fight. Senator Reid has determined capitulation is the proper response and bases his policy on the conviction that the war is already lost and that it’s smart politics to surrender. On April 12, Reid said, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me the numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Schumer’s numbers may be “astounding” but no more so than Reid’s willingness, indeed his enthusiasm, to view victory at the polls more valuable than victory on the battlefield.

Reid has declared “nothing has changed” since the troop surge began in Baghdad. He’s wrong. Writing about a trip he took to Iraq in early April, Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, reported, “With only three of five extra brigade combat teams on the ground, the situation in the capital has already shown signs of improvement… The murder rate fell 75 percent in February. March saw a slight increase but by the beginning of April the number of murders in the capital is still down 50 percent since the start of last year.”

On April 11, Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, spoke at the Virginia Military Institute about his fifth trip to Iraq. While warning “many difficult challenges” lie ahead, he said, “But we have also made, in recent weeks, measurable progress in establishing security in Baghdad and fighting al Qaeda in Anbar province.”

The basic question, McCain said, is “…will we decide to take advantage of the public’s frustration, accept defeat, and hope that whatever the cost to our security the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents? …However it ends, the war in Iraq will have a profound influence on the future of the Middle East, global stability, and the security of the United States, which will remain, for the foreseeable future, directly affected by events in that dangerous part of the world. …The war on terror, the war for the future of the Middle East, and the struggle for the soul of Islam - of which the war in Iraq constitutes a key element - are bound together. Progress in one requires progress in all.”

McCain explained the consequences of failure: “A power vacuum in Iraq would invite further interference from Iran at a time when Tehran already feels emboldened enough to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel and America, and kidnap British sailors. If the government collapses in Iraq, which it surely will if we leave prematurely, Iraq’s neighbors, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt, will feel pressure to intervene on the side of their favored factions. This uncertain swirl of events could cause the region to explode and foreclose the opportunity for millions of Muslims and their children to achieve freedom. We could face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, the price of oil escalate dramatically and our economy decline, watch the terrorists establish new base camps or send American troops back to Iraq, with the odds against our success much worse than they are today.”
With eloquence, facts and a solid comprehension of the circumstances McCain described what is at stake and it is as amazing as it is disturbing that there are those in leadership positions who reject reality. Undeterred by facts, Reid says security in Iraq will improve when U.S. troops leave. In Reid’s fantasy world, security improves when the primary security generating force abandons the field.
The poll says a number of Americans detect a similarity between Iraq and Vietnam. That’s understandable. The lack of unity of purpose among America’s leaders has sparked a deep chasm in public opinion and America’s enemies are wise enough to exploit the division. The Vietnam War was not lost in the jungles of Vietnam but on Capitol Hill and on America’s university campuses. America’s enemies learn from history, even if America does not. The future belongs to those who have confidence in their purpose, who draw wisdom from their past and believe the ideas that underpin their society are just and worth defending. Senator Reid and his allies give no indication that they are prepared to help guide America into the future. ‘Leaders’ like Senator Reid are preparing to recreate a sad chapter in U.S. history by orchestrating Vietnam II in Iraq. Such ‘leaders’ are not worthy of their office.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com