Arguments from Hell’s Leading Daily Newspaper
A blogger from The Dis Brimstone Daily (Clark Clifford), wrote a post in response to a Washington Post article about the President's policy in Iraq, and also featured a list of questions I wrote as part of the post entitled "They Voted Against Victory" back in June, in response to the house vote on Resolution 861. The questions I wrote were directed at Democrats who ascribe to the party's cut and run strategy in Iraq and elsewhere. The blogger at Dis Brimstone provided answers to those questions based on his own world view.
I'm going to list the questions from my previous post along with his answers and rebut each one for the sake of clarity.
Question:
How they [the Democratic party] plan to protect American citizens around the World when the Islamo-fascists, emboldened by our defeat in Iraq, take the initiative and step up their efforts?
Clifford's answer:
With the same robust application of the CIA and FBI as is being done today.
My response:
The robust application of the CIA and FBI is currently being made possible by the USA Patriot Act. Neither agency was nearly robust enough prior to 9/11. Moreover, the effort to strike down the Patriot Act has been lead by the Democratic Party. One of the country's top ranking Democrats was even publicly quoted as saying "We killed the Patriot Act" during a Democrat-lead effort to filibuster a proposal to extend it.
Questions:
How they plan to protect American families when the terrorists in Iraq follow our troops home? How they plan to deal with a depressed economy that will surely follow a defeat in Iraq?
Clifford's answer:
I highly doubt if the democrats will disband ICE or open the US border to waves of undocumented immigrants that is unless they float to Florida from Cuba.
My Response:
I would agree with your assessment. However, what worries me is that both political parties, especially the democrats, view new immigrants (legal or illegal) as a future, or in some cases a current, voting block.
Having our soldiers engaging Jihadist's in their own neighborhood in the middle east and elsewhere instead of chasing them through the streets of New York City or Detroit seems to make strategic sense.
Question:
If the going gets tougher in Afghanistan, and by all indications it will, how quickly will they withdraw troops from that country?
Clifford's answer:
Afghanistan is only the city of kabul the rest is literally a vast amalgamation of territory held by warlords. The nation looks more like Somalia than Iraq.
My Response:
This has to be one of the most short-sighted explanations I've ever heard with regards to Afghanistan. The fact is, there are many populated cities with strategic military importance in Afghanistan. Ahmed Shah Massoud (a.k.a the Lion of Panjshir), the leader of the Afghan rebel fighters who played a significant role in driving the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980's, was able to do so from bases in cities and towns north of Kabul.
The other major problem the U.S. and it's allies will soon face is a major counter-attack by the Taliban and al-Qaeda allied fighters. These groups have largely retreated to neighboring Pakistan where they have been rearming and recruiting for the past several years.
Question:
How they plan to defend the country against a nuclear armed Iran once the Iranians realize America doesn't keep its promises?
Clifford's answer:
Simple, it cannot. And that is due to a stubborn willfulness on the part of the current administration. If America would talk to Iran directly through back channels much of this could be resolved. The current administration is perfectly happy not having dialogue with Iran or Syria for its own reasons.
My Response:
The current administration is probably communicating with Iran through various diplomatic channels. You and I may never know the extent to which these two countries communicate. However, the threat from Iran is very real. Ordinary people there are terrified of their leaders and very fearful that they may actually follow through on their threats to "wipe Israel off the map". So far, the democrats have criticized the current administration for not "talking" to Iranian leaders. But they have yet to reveal a real plan and their own track record in dealing with countries like Iran and North Korea simply stinks.
Question:
How they plan to deal with a re-armed Libya and the extremist takeover of the government in Pakistan?
Clifford's answer:
While Libya as long a Qadaffi is in power [sic] is little threat a fundamentalist Pakistan is a greater nightmare than a nuclear Iran. Fortunately, India is sitting right there as quite the deterrent.
My Response:
I would agree with this statement. A radicalized Pakistani government is a real threat. But to simply suggest that India would deter that threat is naïve at best. You can't rely on another nation to protect your own national security. India has an extremely large Muslim population so they have many other interests to balance.
Question:
How they’ll sleep at night knowing that Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered by anti–government Sunni Arabs in retaliation for cooperating with the coalition, as had happened to the Shia after the first Gulf war?
Clifford's answer:
I know this blogger wished he had never put this on his site. Because this is exactly what is happening on Bush's watch with control of Congress in the hands of the GOP. That question is better directed at Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Rice, and the POTUS.
My Response:
Clifford is correct, I was premature in writing that the Sunni Arabs would retaliate against the Shia as had happened after the first Gulf war. It would actually be the Shia that engages in mass-retaliation if U.S. troops left too soon. As for whether Bush et al are to blame? I disagree. The Iraqi's are not a bunch of simple-minded children. They will decide if and when, and to what extent they engage in violence against one another.