Friday, June 16, 2006

The Loyal Opposition Strikes Again

Let's see, our Left insists that it was a terrible mistake--one of many errors they say--to disband the enemy Iraq army after we captured Badghdad. The enemy should have been given government uniforms, weapons, and ammunition, and trusted at our side.

The Left also wants us to get out of Iraq since they think the war unwinnable. This would let the enemy actually take over the Iraqi government.

Yet now, they express horror that the Iraqi government might have considered pardons for the enemy if they give up the war but only if they exclusively killed Americans:

“The mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom,” shrieked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez a co-sponsor of the resolution demanding that the amnesty plan be immediately quashed, thundered: "We ask you Prime Minister Maliki, are you willing to have ‘reconciliation’ on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom?” He continued: “We reject that notion and are outraged that the sacrifice of American troops and the American people could be so devalued.”

Florida Senator Bill Nelson says “Terrorists and insurgents shouldn’t be rewarded for killing American soldiers.” And, Chuck Schumer in a pitch perfect pose of deep regret and sadness lamented that insurgents were getting a “get out of jail free card.”

So help me understand the deep big-brained, nuance of this reasoning. We should have forgiven Baathists who killed our troops in the invasion; or let the enemies who still kill our troops win; but letting the Iraqis pardon those who killed us in order to end the insurgency is an outrage.

Huh. I don't get it.

Ah, the "reality debased community" at its best, it seems.

Look, the report isn't true, it seems. But even if true, I'd have no problems with it. If it wins the war, doesn't this save more of our lives in the long run? And amnesty doesn't have to mean the enemy gets to join the government. Nor is this much of a stretch from historical practice. Or have I forgotten the mass trials of Tories after our Revolution or the mass imprisonment of Confederate soldiers after our Civil War?

Heck, we could let the enemy know that we would arrest them if they step on our territory. Iraq's amnesty does not have to be our amnesty.

But the bottom line is that splitting off the enemy and getting even some to give up is a good thing. Remember, make the enemy fight or die and they might choose to fight. Some will fight until killed even if offered an out, but these are likely to be the minority. The objective is to win the war and not to kill every last jihadi or Baathist roaming around Iraq.

Plus, practically speaking, do you really think it is possible that there are enemy terrorists and insurgents out there who have only killed American or Coalition military personnel? Haven't we learned the enemy kills whoever is handy?

I think the real idea is that the Iraqi government is trying to say that if you are a blood-soaked Baathist or jihadi, you must leave Iraq or die. But if you are a Sunnni who took up arms thinking you were defending Iraq from an invader--whether you fought Iraqis or Americans--they can talk about amnesty. These latter types don't have decades of crimes against the Shias and Kurds on their record under Saddam nor are they necessarily associated with the hated foreign al Qaeda thugs coming in to Iraq to kill for a Sunni god.

But for the Loyal opposition here, complaining is job one. That is what connects all their complaints about anything involving Iraq. It allows them to call the best trained and best equipped Army in the world, ill-prepared for war.

It makes life easier for them. No thinking involved, really.