Redstate

By Jason Barnes Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

With Republicans turning the heat up on Iraq, the chicken-hawk argument is back in vogue. It's a ridiculous argument. But imagine if we applied it to all commentators on Iraq.  Here's John Murtha speaking of Karl Rove on Meet the Press:

He's in New Hampshire, he's making the political speech, he's sitting in his air-conditioned office in his back fat side saying stay the course. That's not a plan. I mean, this guy - I don't know what his military experience is but that's a political statement.

Here's Howard Dean on Hardball:

I believe that John Murtha, who served two terms in Vietnam and 37 years as a combat veteran marine, knows a great deal more about national defense than anybody in the Republican National Committee and in the large majority of people in the White House....

John Murtha and John Kerry served in Vietnam. Karl Rove did not, George Bush did not, Dick Cheney did not, Don Rumsfeld did not, and they wouldn't listen to the people who did.

The fact is that you can't trust these folks, they didn't serve abroad defending America. They talk tough, but the fact is that they are sitting in an air-conditioned office on various parts of their anatomy and it is big cheap to talk in Washington or to fly in for a half day with the troops.

Let's assume the legitimacy of Dean's argument for a moment and say that military service is THE qualification for authenticity on Iraq.

Did Dean serve? Nope. Guess we can cross him off the list of legitimate critics.Did Nancy Pelosi? Nope. Cross her off too. Harry Reid? Nope. Zero for three on official Democratic leadership. Next.

Ted Kennedy? Hey, we finally found someone other than Kerry and Murtha. Kennedy served from in the Army from 1951 to 1953, but served in Europe rather than Korea. Better than nothing under the Chickenhawk Test.

Charles Schumer? Nope. Dick Durbin? Nope. Robert Byrd? Nope, but he was a Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops during WWII. Wait, that doesn't count.

Murtha and Kerry are the only prominent legislative critics left after we put the Democratic Party through the Chickenhawk Test.

NOTE: Some less prominent Dems have military records - namely Rep. Charles Rangel, who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Korea; Sen. Tom Harkin; and Sen. Jack Reed, who was a U.S. Army Ranger in the 1970s.  

What about the Republicans?

John McCain? He served. In fact, he really served. If we're using Dean's test, McCain has more legitimacy in his pinkie than exists in the entire Democratic Party.

And what does McCain say about the war? Here's what he said on the floor of the Senate today (courtesy of the Weekly Standard's Daniel McKivergan):

The amendment we are debating now states the sense of Congress that the President should begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq this year, and that he should submit to Congress a plan with dates for this redeployment. Such a move would be, I believe, a significant step on the road to disaster....

By signaling that an end to the American intervention is near, we will alienate our friends, who fear an insurgent victory and tempt undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.

Not every member of this body agreed with the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But when our country went to war, we incurred a moral duty to not abandon the people of Iraq to terrorists and killers. If we withdraw prematurely, risking all-out civil war, we will have done precisely that....

In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that there are today in Iraq terrorists who are planning attacks against Americans. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice....

Whether or not members of this body believed that Iraq was part of the war on terror in 2003, it is simply incontrovertible that the war on terror is being fought there today. Al-Qaeda is present in Iraq. Jihadists continue to cross the borders. Suicide bombers target American troops, government personnel, and civilians. If we leave Iraq prematurely, the jihadists will interpret the withdrawal as the triumph of their brutal tactics against our power. And I do not believe they will stop with Iraq....

The letter released last year from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's lieutenant, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, draws out the implications. The Zawahiri letter is predicated on the assumption that the United States will leave Iraq, and that al Qaeda's real game begins as soon as we abandon the country. In his missive, Zawahiri lays out a four stage plan - establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the "jihad wave" to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel - none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Zawahiri observes that the collapse of American power in Vietnam, "and how they ran and left their agents," suggests that "we must be ready starting now."

We can't let them start, now or ever. We must stay in Iraq until the government there has fully functioning security forces that can keep the insurgents at bay, and ultimately defeat them. Some argue that it is our very presence in Iraq that has created the insurgency, and that if we end the occupation, we end the insurgency. But, in fact, by ending military operations, we are likely to empower the insurgency. The fighting is not simply against coalition forces; rather, the insurgents target the Iraqi government, opposing militias, and various sects and ethnicities....

A few observers have argued that the U.S. has an option of somehow pulling our troops from Iraq but still managing things from afar. But this is nonsense. The United States will have no leverage to manage things once we have left the country. The battle in Iraq, which is likely to remain counterinsurgency in character, is ill-suited to the extensive use of airpower, which would be the foremost instrument available to us from outside. We could no more prevail in Iraq from outside than we could win the war in Vietnam by continuing to bomb the North. As tempting as it is to seek a solution that would let us both draw down our troops and preserve our military options in Iraq, that solution does not exist. The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed....

America's first goal in Iraq is to win the war - and that all other policy decisions support, and are subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

No one should have any illusions about the costs of this conflict, as it has been waged thus far or as it will be waged as we move ahead. But neither should anyone have illusions about the role of Iraq in the war on terror today. It has become a central battleground in our fight against those who wish us grave harm, and we cannot wish away this fundamental truth.

What about the House?

Henry Hyde served in the South Pacific in WWII and saw combat in the Philippines. What does he have to say? He's vigorously defending the war too. See my post from earlier today.

Finally, what about the rest of America? According to exit polls, President Bush won 57 percent of the ex-military vote in 2004 while Kerry only took home 41 percent. Notch another one in the Republican belt. A pre-election poll found sixty-nine percent had a favorable opinion of Bush, and only 29 percent had a favorable opinion of Kerry.