Bush, the Dems, and the Surge

I don't get it.

Why do the Dems want us to lose in Iraq?

I know politics involves a lot of grandstanding and posturing by people with massive egos.

All the legacy talk is an example.

Personally, I don't think that Bush cares about his legacy as far as self-aggrandizement goes. I think he cares about protecting Americans from another 9/11.

But when did the U.S. Presidency become about how the officeholder would be perceived in history, as if that's what matters most?

When did elected public servants become little more than self-serving egomaniacs?

Let's take the legacies of Bush and the Dem leaders out of the equation for the moment.

Simply put, it's not in the best interest of the U.S. to lose in Iraq. That's a no-brainer.

The consequences of the defeat in Iraq that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Dems are determined to guarantee reach far beyond our national politics and power within our government.

This thing is bigger than the personal goals of Dems and Republicans.

I believe that what happens in Iraq will have a direct impact on Americans at home. How the war plays out will not only affect the future of the Middle East, but our national security as well.

So why do the Dems and some wobbly Republicans want to lose?

From The Washinton Post:

When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."

But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

Bush's decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

It may also be a sign of increasing assertiveness from a commander in chief described by former aides as relatively passive about questioning the advice of his military advisers. In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since the time of the invasion.

The Post asserts that Bush is completely out of step with the country and with his generals.

Really?

Bush hasn't even addressed the nation yet, and the libs are on the attack.

The President hasn't had a chance to make the case for more troops in Iraq. He hasn't delivered his speech to the American people, and the Dems and their mouthpieces in the lib media have already instructed Americans to reject Bush's ideas.

The Left is telling people how to react to Bush's plan for Iraq.

You can bet if Bush wanted to withdraw troops, the libs would be whining about that being the wrong strategy.

...The Joint Chiefs came to accept Bush's wishes, especially after new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates traveled to Iraq last month with the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, said a U.S. official familiar with the trip. Gates met with Maliki, who laid out more details about the Iraqi plan for Baghdad.

"That gave them enough to define a mission and its objectives," the official said. "They came back satisfied."

In the end, the White House favored the idea of more troops as one visible and dramatic step the administration could take. One senior White House official said this week the president concluded that more troops are not the only ingredient of a successful plan -- but they are a precondition to providing the security the Iraqi government needs for political reconciliation and other reforms.

In other words, the Joint Chiefs do agree with Bush's plan.

That's not pulling away from his top military brass as The Post claims in the headline.

This article strains to portray Bush as isolated and extreme and taking a course in Iraq that nearly no one wants to take.

That's a distortion.

Nonetheless, the dense libs keep cheerleading for Bush's defeat.

What they don't understand is that defeat in Iraq is a defeat for America, not just Bush or Republicans.

The Dems are the Party of Pessimism. The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

Like with Vietnam, some of the most significant battles in the Iraq war are being fought here at home.

If we lose in Iraq, it will be because the Dems were victorious.