War of Wits

deploy [v] de – ploi (Fr.) déployer, literally, to unfold.

1). to extend (a military unit) especially in width. to place in battle formation or appropriate positions. 2). to spread out, utilize, or arrange for a deliberate purpose <deploy a sales force> <deploy a parachute> 3). to move, spread out, or function while being deployed <the troops deployed along the front> <the parachute failed to deploy> © 2007 Merriam Webster Inc.

I’m sick and tired of this debate. I’m sick and tired of watching while a bunch of defeatists determine the fate of this nation based on their contortions of the English language. Conservatives have –for far too long– allowed liberals to define the terms of the political debate. Case in point: This notion of “phased redeployment”. Democrats have seized on this term. It is painfully obvious that the definition of “deploy” means that you are going to use something for the purpose it was intended. In the military’s case, that is to blow things up and kill people.

Once again, in stark fashion liberal claptrap is exposed. Their true intent is to move our military out of Iraq, either home or perhaps Kuwait. By hook or by crook. They have stated as much, yet called it a “redeployment”. It is nothing more than a forced retreat or a forced withdrawal.

For weeks, they have split hairs. First they said they wouldn’t cut funding. When their worthless non-binding resolutions failed to register a blip because Americans bristled at the suggestion, they were finally able to agree on a watered-down version, saying they disagreed with the President’s decision to reinforce Baghdad, but would continue to “support and protect the members of the United States Armed forces… in Iraq”.

That prospect wasn’t very palatable to the Senate, where passage of their own proposal failed this week. In response to the weak-kneed Senate, House Democrats have decided they would just retreat by committee. John “Cold-blooded” Murtha, Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has now submitted various proposals to shackle the president. Unrealistic readiness and training requirements. More red tape than you could possibly imagine.

According to the Subcommittee’s own press release, they intend to redirect more resources against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That would be great if there wasn’t an al Qaeda in Iraq. Additionally, Walter Reed Hospital was scheduled to close as determined previously by the B.R.A.C. It’s operations were to be consolidated at other military facilities, saving money and streamlining care. Now, Murtha is trying to tinker with that as well. His intent is to keep Walter Reed open in spite of the fact it is one of the oldest installations in the country. He hopes that by doing this and attaching even stricter standards, that the Administration will have to sink so much money in Walter Reed to keep it open, that they will have to choose between the hospital and bullets.

Holding the purse strings is Congress’ prerogative. What isn’t is micro-management of the war. And Murtha’s proposal is unprecedented. It calls for allowing the President to grant himself a waiver on readiness requirements, if he faces the country and explains why. It also sets benchmarks, exerts pressure on Iraqi leaders to make progress and sets a drop-dead date for the beginning of US withdrawal –regardless of how much progress there is on the ground– by March 1, 2008. If Murtha and the Democrats put this much pressure on Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to cooperate with us, the war on terror could be won in a few years.

This is a war, not a 2008 presidential debate. I’m sorry if it interferes with the Democratic Primary.

So why won’t Democrats use correct terminology? Because it just reeks of cowardice and defeatism. Phased redeployment sounds much better, doesn’t it? But that’s not what it is. “Redeploying” our forces to Kuwait might play well to the average American, but to terrorists in Iraq, it will be a monumental victory over the Great Satan. Despite all of the possible outcomes, any legislation must first pass the Senate, which proved elusive this past week. Even if it does, it faces an almost certain veto threat from the President. Which then begs the question why?

Why John Murtha are you engaging in this exercise in futility?

Somebody get this man a straightjacket before he does any more damage.