I opposed the initial Somalia intervention under Bush 41, figuring the Somalis would shoot at us eventually.
I opposed our Bosnia and Kosovo operations in the 1990s, thinking these were European problems so let them solve them. Why us all the time? Every time something came up outside of Europe, the Europeans would beg off, pleading distance; but then within Europe, the Western Europeans without us couldn't scrape up the forces to take down a two-bit dictator? If the situation wasn't urgent enough for them to rouse themselves to action, why should we have? And don't say it was to gain the gratitude of Moslems by saving them from slaughter. That and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee as the saying goes.
Yet I wanted us to win in every case once committed. And I never ever descended into the depths of believing we were morally wrong for intervening. Such thoughts were--and are--inconceivable to me.
So, Victor Hanson writes of something about the war in Iraq that just seems shocking to me to contemplate:
Once a democratically elected Iraqi government emerged, and a national army was trained, the only way we could lose this war was to forfeit it at home, through the influence of an adroit, loud minority of critics that for either base or misguided reasons really does wish us to lose. They really do.
They really do want us to lose. Don't they?
Amazingly, 153 members of the House of Representatives voted against this resolution.
What exactly was repugnant to those voting 'no,' I have to wonder? And how can this be considered patriotic?
UPDATE: More here:
Given the bland and limited language of the resolution, it is astonishing that 80% of House Democrats felt compelled to vote against it. If President Bush has staked the future of his administration on the outcome in Iraq, Democrats appear to have placed their political bets on the war continuing to go badly. Given the death of Zarqawi, the formation of a unity government in Baghdad, and possible developments in the search for WMD material, that is starting to look like a risky wager.
Democrats might recall they made similar bets that they could win the political debate over Iraq in both 2002 and 2004. They lost both times, and last week's Iraq debate in Congress shouldn't give them confidence that they have any better approach in this election year.
It's not so much that I get upset that the loyal opposition is betting against our victory for their own political success (though that is bad enough); but that they work so hard to ensure we lose.
