House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that she does not think that the American people have an appetite for boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. This deep thought was her comment on the AUMF proposal sent by president Obama to Congress.
Why do congressional leaders say such silly things? Is there anyone who thinks that the American people are looking for a war? Is there anyone who thinks that the American people have ever looked for a war? Sure, after 9-11 as well as after Pearl Harbor, the American people supported war to respond to those attacks. But that was not America looking for war; it was America fighting a war that others thrust on it. So, yes, Nancy, the American people do not have an appetite for war in the Middle East.
Here's another point, however. Poll after poll taken of those same American people show that by a very large majority, they are of the opinion that in order to defeat ISIS it will be necessary to use American ground forces (and those pesky boots on the ground.) Unlike Nancy Pelosi, the American people recognize the reality that only ground forces take ground. ISIS now controls about a third of Syria and a third of Iraq. No helicopters, jets or missiles will get rid of that ISIS control. Victory over ISIS will require some ground force.
And who will those ground forces be? There are the Kurds. The Kurdish forces have fought valiantly and have not given ground in the face of the ISIS onslaught. There are only so many Kurdish fighters, however, and they are not even well armed due to Obama refusal to send proper weapons. There are the "vetted" Syrian opposition, but this is an imaginary group that Obama talks about but never produces. Nearly a year after the president told us that America would train and arm this group, there has been no training of anyone. There is the Iraqi army, much of which is now under the de facto control of Iran. This is the same army that cowardly ran away from ISIS in the first place. The likelihood that the Iraqis will turn around and fight is not very high. Finally there are the Jordanians and perhaps the Turks. These forces could make a difference, but it is hard to imagine either country throwing their armies into the battle without the security of fighting alongside an American contingent.
It would be nice if Pelosi would explain all this to the American people rather than just tell them that she knows they don't want war. Not wanting a war is different from not supporting a war. Just once, our representatives should consider what is necessary to do for the good of the nation rather than what is likely to get votes. Believe it or not, I am not advocating the use of American ground troops. I am just suggesting that having an honest debate on the point would serve the national interest much more than mouthing platitudes a la Pelosi.
Why do congressional leaders say such silly things? Is there anyone who thinks that the American people are looking for a war? Is there anyone who thinks that the American people have ever looked for a war? Sure, after 9-11 as well as after Pearl Harbor, the American people supported war to respond to those attacks. But that was not America looking for war; it was America fighting a war that others thrust on it. So, yes, Nancy, the American people do not have an appetite for war in the Middle East.
Here's another point, however. Poll after poll taken of those same American people show that by a very large majority, they are of the opinion that in order to defeat ISIS it will be necessary to use American ground forces (and those pesky boots on the ground.) Unlike Nancy Pelosi, the American people recognize the reality that only ground forces take ground. ISIS now controls about a third of Syria and a third of Iraq. No helicopters, jets or missiles will get rid of that ISIS control. Victory over ISIS will require some ground force.
And who will those ground forces be? There are the Kurds. The Kurdish forces have fought valiantly and have not given ground in the face of the ISIS onslaught. There are only so many Kurdish fighters, however, and they are not even well armed due to Obama refusal to send proper weapons. There are the "vetted" Syrian opposition, but this is an imaginary group that Obama talks about but never produces. Nearly a year after the president told us that America would train and arm this group, there has been no training of anyone. There is the Iraqi army, much of which is now under the de facto control of Iran. This is the same army that cowardly ran away from ISIS in the first place. The likelihood that the Iraqis will turn around and fight is not very high. Finally there are the Jordanians and perhaps the Turks. These forces could make a difference, but it is hard to imagine either country throwing their armies into the battle without the security of fighting alongside an American contingent.
It would be nice if Pelosi would explain all this to the American people rather than just tell them that she knows they don't want war. Not wanting a war is different from not supporting a war. Just once, our representatives should consider what is necessary to do for the good of the nation rather than what is likely to get votes. Believe it or not, I am not advocating the use of American ground troops. I am just suggesting that having an honest debate on the point would serve the national interest much more than mouthing platitudes a la Pelosi.
No comments:
Post a Comment