More Evidence that Democrats are Wrong on Iraq

Multiple stories printed in liberal media outlets demonstrate that the Democrat's intentions to force a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq are dangerously misguided.

The first comes from the Washington Post in an article written by Michael Gerson who starts his article with this:

One of the most infuriating problems in Iraq seems to generate precious little fury. In a kind of malicious chemistry experiment, hostile powers are adding accelerants to Iraq's frothing chaos. Iran smuggles the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers. Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis in markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage. This is not a complete explanation for the difficulties in Iraq. Poor governance and political paralysis would exist if Iran and Syria meddled or not. But without these outside influences, Tony Blair told me recently, the situation in Iraq would be "very nearly manageable."

Next a report published by the Los Angeles Times written by an Iraqi official, Mowaffak Rubaie (Iraq's national security advisor). Rubaie writes:

We also recognize that we have a long way to go. In a number of "hot spots," we have not yet turned the tide, largely because of foreign interference. The most deadly weapons and explosives, including the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, enter Iraq from Iran. Ninety percent of the suicide bombers are foreigners; half of them are Saudi nationals; and the majority of these bombers enter Iraq through Syria. Nearly 90% of their victims are innocent Iraqi civilians. This cannot continue. We must persuade our neighbors to prevent terrorists and meddlers from using their territories as entry points into Iraq.

Both articles should be read in their entirety.

These support the reasoning I have offered on this blog that the main issue is Iran and Syria not Iraq. These two trouble makers are the leading state sponsors of terror. They are working to defeat the U.S. in Iraq in hopes of installing a government in that country submissive to, and complicit with, their regional and international ambitions.

A U.S. withdrawal plays directly into their hands, strengthening both regimes, but particularly the Iranians. This must not be allowed to happen. The United States must remain, at least resolute, if not on the strategic offensive, to counter and ultimately eliminate this poisonous situation.

But instead of considering national security and the war on terror, liberal elitists like Eleanor Clift writing in Newsweek, reduce the war to domestic electoral dynamics:

The operative emotion is anger. The voters are almost as furious with the Democrats for their inability to end the Iraq War as they are with President Bush for prolonging it. ... Democrats needed to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the war, even if they are.

I hope my fellow citizens will awaken to the strategic imperative and not allow the Democrats to throw victory to our enemies.