Home > Insight

Dems pin win to Iraqi unrest
By Kellie Ludwig
kludwig3@mscd.edu

With President Bush having submitted a $105 billion emergency war-spending bill to Congress to continue funding military operations in Iraq, Democrats in both the House and Senate are using the occasion to pursue their own partisan political agenda.

Since liberals have opposed the Bush administration’s new war strategy to secure Baghdad and Anbar province by sending an additional 26,000 troops to Iraq, one would expect that they would have voted to terminate the funding of the war. Instead, Democratic congressional leaders added nearly $20 billion in pork barrel spending in order to buy the votes of their reluctant moderate colleagues. The Democrats do not have a winning strategy for Iraq. They are convinced that if the U.S. fails in Iraq they will secure the presidency in 2008. If the U.S. prevails in Iraq, Democrats are not so sure.

In contrast, President Bush’s and Tony Blair’s persistence in Iraq illustrates their firm belief that a successful outcome in Iraq will promote U.S. and Western security, as well as provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity to exercise control over their own lives by placing political power in their hands. The right of self-determination is an essential component of the president’s strategy to prosecute the war on terror.

The preamble of the joint resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2003 includes: “Whereas members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; … Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-38) expressed the same sense of the Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime…” This act was approved by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, by unanimous consent in the Senate. Why then is there such great animosity toward the Bush administration by leaders of the Democratic Party, who less than five years ago agreed with his objectives?

It has been reported that in the last few weeks the level of violence has declined in Baghdad and in the Anbar province. Some Sunnis have now aligned with Iraqi and U.S. forces in tackling al-Qaida in Iraq. Last November, members of an Iraqi battalion which had been patrolling and fighting al-Qaida in the area from Fallujah to Ramadi were astonished to hear from a young local sheikh, “We have decided that by helping you, we are helping Allah.” This group has been involved in raids that have resulted in the arrest of 30 insurgents.

With the implementation of the surge strategy in its infancy, one can only wonder why Democrats would now tell our adversaries when we will pull out of Iraq, which would leave Iraq with the expectation that the sectarian violence will dramatically increase, and knowing that al-Qaida has great ambitions to establish a ruling caliphate in Iraq. Providing our adversaries with our withdrawal date signals our defeat and acknowledges that our commitment to eradicate terrorism in the world is not as great as al-Qaida’s commitment to its cause.

It is a critical time in Iraq, and despite recent events that illustrate progress there, Democrats have tied their future electoral fortunes to America’s failure and humiliation.