Frank Gaffney of the Washington Times writes:
"Some of Capitol Hill's...armchair generals propose to "relocate" the forces removed from Iraq to Kuwait or some other, "over-the-horizon" location. We are told they could then be reintroduced if things get ugly in Iraq — say, if al Qaeda's friends or Iranian-backed groups fill the vacuum of power created by our bailing out. Fat chance.
"First of all, it is certain that one or both of these predictable results will eventuate. Few, if any, of those insisting on our troops' extrication from a less-bad mess will be willing to support their renewed exposure to even greater dangers. And who's to say Kuwait will be willing to take our displaced legions, making the emirate the next battleground for the Islamofascists' "liberation" of Arab and Muslim lands?<
One of the considerable risks that confronts a republic is the legislature's inept interference in military issues. The public ought to ask Congress for a clear description of any strategies that it proposes and what its goals in implementing the strategies are. This one sounds like pure stupidity, much like the ideas in the New York Times. The public deserves a coherent SWOT analysis together with an explicit contingency plan as to what Congress expects given strategic moves such as this. Frankly, I do not see why this strategy is better in any way than President Bush's current strategy and expect that it will cause new problems. I do not hear a coherent Congressional argument or coherent discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment