BCT Editorial – 11/17/06

This page was last updated on November 19, 2006.

Worth the wait; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 17, 2006.

This editorial should have been predictable. It’s just an effort to provide cover for the fact that Democrats have no plan for Iraq other than leaving.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Let’s cool the Iraq debate until after a commission presents its recommendations.

“Could we have a moratorium on the debate over what the United States should do in regard to Iraq until after a special bipartisan commission makes its recommendations in a few weeks?”

[RWC] Hmm, when Democrats were in the minority in Congress and presented by the press as having no power, it was OK – even encouraged – to “debate” Iraq from the day our Armed Forces crossed into Iraq. Now that Democrats hold the majority in Congress and thus are perceived as having power, suddenly we should “cool the Iraq debate” and “have a moratorium on the debate.”

“Democrats are feeling feisty, and that’s understandable. The main reason they regained control of Congress was because of the American people’s discontent with President Bush and the occupation of Iraq.

“However, waiting a few more weeks for the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations is the wise thing for them to do.

“To start with, Democrats are hardly united on this matter. Although many want to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, they’re all over the calendar when it comes to setting a timetable.”

[RWC] Translation: Democrats have no plan other than cut and run, but we don’t want the voters to find out. Further to avoid ever being blamed for any decision, Democrats should wait for the ISG recommendation and do whatever it says. That way, if the plan works Democrats can claim credit. If the recommendation fails, Democrats can blame the ISG.

“In addition to that, foreign affairs and defense are still largely the domain of the executive branch. Congressional Democrats can huff and puff all they want, but they won’t be able to control U.S. military events on the ground in Iraq. When it comes to Iraq, President Bush still matters.

“Have no doubt, though. It’s not a matter of when the United States exits Iraq. It’s a matter of how it does so. When this Iraq debacle is over, the American people and their leaders will have to deal with the fallout - domestically and internationally.”

[RWC] Translation: Democrats plan to leave Iraq immediately, but need to find a way to spin quitting so Americans won’t refer to it as quitting.

What Democrats refer to as “redeployment” is really quitting. Redeployment in its true definition in this context means moving troops from one battle/front to another. For example, after defeating the Nazis in North Africa during World War II, Allied troops were redeployed to invade Europe via Italy. When you plan to remove U.S. troops from combat and move them lock, stock, and barrel to Okinawa, Japan, that’s retreat.

Here’s why the Okinawa “strategy” is simply Democrats trying to hide the true nature of their proposal.

“As the crow flies,” Okinawa is about 5,000 miles from Iraq. For comparison purposes, Washington, DC, is about 6,000 miles from Iraq. Given the relatively small affect this distance difference would have on a military deployment, there is little difference between retreating to Okinawa or the U.S. The only thing Okinawa brings to the table is Democrats will claim retreating to Okinawa is “redeployment” and they believe we’re gullible enough to buy it.

There’s also something else to remember about the above distances. Because these are straight-line distances, the 5,000 miles from Okinawa to Iraq grossly understates the distance military ships would need to sail and military planes would have to fly. Military flights would have to take a far more circuitous route to avoid overflights of countries like Iran and Red China, and other countries that may object to combat missions flying over their soil. Thus, 5,000 miles “as the crow flies” could be as high as 8,000 miles in practice.

By the way, has anyone asked Japan if they’d like an influx of 150,000 American military personnel or if they’d be OK with the U.S. launching combat operations from Japanese soil?

“That’s why the report by the commission, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican, and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman who chaired the House Foreign Relations Committee, is so important.

“The commission offers the last and best hope of finding an exit strategy on which the American people and their leaders can declare victory and get out. Unless events on the ground change dramatically, that’s something that is worth waiting for.”

[RWC] “[D]eclare victory and get out.” At least the Times is being honest.

A brief retrospective of Times editorials is due here.

During August 2005, two editorials (“Cut and run” and “Stay the course”) in three days tried to convince us “The Bush administration is laying the groundwork to declare victory and get out of Iraq” but “It [Bush administration] cannot be allowed to declare victory and bug out.” The Times went further and stated, “That means beefing up the U.S. military presence there to make Iraq more secure, even if it takes more years than most of us would like.”

Only seven months later in March 2006, when the Times finally figured out President Bush wasn’t going to cut and run, the Times declared the “only exit strategy is fast approaching the declare-victory-and-get-out stage.” Editorials since then have repeated that position. I’m sure it’s only a coincidence the Times position changed shortly after Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) started advocating a cut-and-run position.

These guys are incredible, and hope we have short memories.