‘These are the times that try men’s souls’

The situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq because of the war on terror defies my attempts at originality to describe.

I find myself in need of laying hold of aphorisms and clichés said by the truly Great Ones, and some not-so-great.

The first one that comes to mind is from Thomas Paine, an American Founding Father, written in 1776. It’s one I used in a previous column, one I keep returning too because of its sheer wisdom: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

A movement is afoot in Congress to remove funding from military stabilization operations in Iraq. The nonbinding resolution designed to disagree with the president’s military “surge” currently being debated in the House and Senate represents the first step in that direction.

The resolution is mute when it comes to offering an alternate plan ensuring victory and protecting our national interest in the region.

“Summer soldiers” and “sunshine patriots” are intent on prolonging the war on terror for two more generations by hastening a unilateral retreat from Baghdad without giving current operations a chance to work.

Emboldened politicians and pundits now behave as generals, claiming to be masters of the retrograde fighting maneuver and the pursuit of peace.

Another saying comes to mind, this one by that great Pennsylvanian, Benjamin Franklin: “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”

Not knowing the original context of Franklin’s declaration, I am left to deal with its meaning at face value.

I agree with him that all wars are bad, but it goes without saying that some are worse than others. On occasion, there’s such a thing as a “bad peace” if this “peace” becomes a cover for defeat, humiliation and eventual surrender to the will of the enemy.

Franklin’s actions in the field of diplomacy belied his own assertion. Once converted to the patriot’s cause, Franklin ensured that the nascent United States had enough weapons to win the war. His diplomatic skills doubled the size of the country at the end of the revolution, at the expense of the British.

If aversion to war and love of peace ever moved Franklin to appease the British, he never showed it.

Thomas Friedman is credited for coining the “Pottery Barn rule” of foreign policy. That is: “You break it, you own it.”

This is what Colin Powell, retired Army general and then secretary of state, told President Bush before the start of the war in Iraq.

Events are about to disprove the logic of this common-sense assertion. We went into Iraq and broke the status quo there, and now our armchair generals want us to retreat without fulfilling our responsibilities, despite an already dreadful investment in American lives and treasure.

We want to walk away; we don’t want to own the situation. But the fact is that we do.

Neville Chamberlain returned from the Munich Conference in 1938, waving a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler and saying, “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.”

Winston Churchill wryly replied, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

Many Chamberlains run around today in the guise of politicians and pundits, waving papers and declaring “peace for our time.”

Their views might even prevail and become both law and accepted wisdom. But by choosing peace over dishonor, they will ensure the coming of even more war.

Sadly, summer soldiers, sunshine patriots and enlightened pundits alone are not going to bear the bitter consequences of failure in Iraq. They will befall all of us, our children and our children’s children.

One more aphorism is in order. George Santayana once said: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

As we get ready to abandon Iraq, we’re about to relearn this lesson in spades. Truly, these are the times that try men’s souls.

I believe in a militantly interventionist, unilateral (other nations are welcome to join us but NOT dictate to us) foreign policy. It required no foresight to understand the ideological lineage of soviet communism, aka Marxism-Leninism. We ought to have strangled them in their cribs. Likewise Mao, Likewise Hitler. There are many means but military ones are quite acceptable against such enemies.

Respectfully, you and I have deep disagreements. That is because you very much disagree with anything cognizable as the conservative movement. Paleo conservatism is the ideology of the old Eurodiployakkers who wept over the demise of their way of life when WWI broke out. Secret covenants secretly arrived at created the spaghetti bowl of interlocking commitments without which WW I would never have been possible but, never mind....

Blood and soilism is NOT conservatism. Bismarck was NOT a conservative. Neither is the Rockford Institute, Chuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones, antiwar.com, Justin(e) Raimondo, or paleoPatrick on matters of foreign and military policy.

Leadership has the obligation, ummm, to lead. That's why they call it.... The US troops were already in Europe (bear in mind Patton's views on the similar situation at the end of WWII). Some were closing in on Ekaterinberg when the Romanovs were massacred. That Lenin died in bed is a moral indictment of Wilson. In 1918, there were capable green and white armies in the field attacking the red and deserving of our assistance.

What justification?????? Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky were Marxist-Leninists who murdered their way to control of a major nation with massive resources. No more justification necessary.

Do I know the future? As Richard Weaver wrote: Ideas have consequences. The soviet idea had obvious consequences to come that needed preventive war.

BTW, Cain killed Abel and then whined that he was not his brother's keeper. Paleos and other foreign policy liberals and wimps NEVER want to assert their moral obligations by way of action in defense of their brothers. It was Cain's way of saying: "Don't blame Cain, Cain is a paleo who was minding his own business."

I do not know from what direction new dangers may arise. That is no excuse for paralysis. As Ted the Swimmer might say (another Cain lookalike), we will cross that bridge when we come to it. We should also remember that an undue adherence to consistency is the hobgoblin of....

What justification?????? Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky were Marxist-Leninists who murdered their way to control of a major nation with massive resources. No more justification necessary.

Do I know the future? As Richard Weaver wrote: Ideas have consequences. The soviet idea had obvious consequences to come that needed preventive war.

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill.

"Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco."

Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land.

The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski.

Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm

Yes, I wrote that piece. Let's read the whole thing, which you may find below.

I still stand by what I said then and by my actions. Now, what if Mr. Murtha proves me wrong? Well, in that case, there's always the next election, and my next ballot my look different.

I am generally conservative, but I am not a Lemming. I will not follow crowds or succumb to ideological peer pressure. I will not vote on a single issue other than pro-Life. I'll vote based upon the big picture.

You may agree with me, disagree with me, etc., but this is the nature of the beast. I followed my conscience. You disagree? Fine. Follow your own.

Like Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that." =================

In the end, Jack Murtha got my vote

BY PEDRO O. VEGA

I voted to re-elect John Murtha to Congress. It was not an easy decision and my support comes with strings attached. Let me share with you how I reached that decision, and what my expectations are now.

Diana Irey came as close as anyone in the past 32 years to defeating Murtha. She did take one-third of the ballots, and that’s respectable. But it soon became obvious to me that the GOP gave her only token support. The party wrote her off as unelectable.

Then, there were the errors in Irey’s campaign. Although lucid and telegenic, Irey was unable to articulate what she would do differently from Murtha in the district.

Also, although Irey expressed many of the same objections and fears I had about Murtha’s “redeployment” plan from Iraq, she failed to explain how she would increase congressionally mandated accountability in the war and rein in runaway spending.

In the end, Irey’s message sounded shallow and one-dimensional.

Murtha also did something that took me by surprise and made me rethink my support of his candidacy: He reacted to my Oct. 8 column (“This voter is yearning for the Murtha of old”) and sent me a personal letter, along with an information package detailing his positions.

I think he sensed that I expressed the misgivings of a section of the electorate who had been his unconditional supporters, but who were skeptical of his Iraq War stance.

The fact that he took the time to explain himself to me increased my estimation of him and, although I was not entitled to any explanations from Irey’s camp, I half-expected a similar note and explanations from her addressing my misgivings regarding her candidacy.

None came.

Lest anyone think that I felt so flattered by Murtha’s attention that I voted for him, let me say that I wasn’t. I read all of his material and, aside from a very sobering assessment of the critical state of the Army – and that’s an argument that I can readily understand – none of the other writings and transcripts he provided really addressed the issue of how a unilateral, unconditional retreat from Iraq would serve our long-term national interest.

Is an Islamic Republic of Iraq in our national interest? Will the countries in the Middle East be happy to receive a flood of refugees from a massive civil war? Would Iran and the Iraqi Shiites form a political union? Will they then be able to control the price of oil in a whim?

Would other countries in the region then follow their lead? Will an assertive, imperial Iran be in a position to challenge the United States and the West militarily and economically? Will Iran bet on American weakness and lack of credibility to impose its will upon us?

Do Murtha and the Demo-cratic Party leadership believe that a unilateral retreat would hold no such lasting consequences?

Doesn’t Murtha even ask himself these questions?

So why did I vote for him?

Look. Irey’s momentum fizzled early in the race. But even if she had been elected, she would have had very little influence in Congress, while Murtha appeared to be heading to a senior leadership position from which he would be able to influence both the prosecution of the war and our region’s recovery.

I reasoned, too, that, if I caught his attention once, I may be able to catch it again and perhaps influence him through respectful reason and dialogue, as I had been trying to do.

It seemed to me that my own credibility to ask him the tough questions would be enhanced if I could speak to him as a supporter rather than as an adversary.

Thus, I voted for him.

My vote also represents an act of faith in Murtha as a person. I fully expect that he will moderate his opposition to the Iraq War by working with President Bush on a solution that tends both to the welfare of our troops and to our long-term interest in the Middle East.

I expect Murtha to enhance our ability and power to face down Islamic fascism and terrorism worldwide, and not to undermine our credibility by even giving the impression that we are “cutting and running.”

And please, no more photo-ops and flesh-pressing with the Code Pinkers. OK?

Mr. Murtha, I gave you my vote. Now, I’ll have to hold you accountable. I trust you want to do the right thing.

But when and if I perceive that you are not, I’ll be here to remind you of the fact.

Congratulations, sir, on your re-election to Congress.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.