Monday, December 05, 2005

Doctor Dean: We're Doomed

First Dems said we didn't have enough troops in Iraq. We put in more troops and we heard that we had to have a handover. We demonstrate there's a handover in progress and they call it Vietnamization.

ARVN was a conscript army; the Vietnamese had to run a draft for twenty years just to stay afloat. Nixon's Vietnamization plan required the Republic of Viet Nam to revoke draft exemptions for college students. We know how well that works.

By contrast, all of the 212,000 Iraqi police, National Guard and Army are volunteers. All of the recruits coming in are volunteers.

Mention that to the chickendoves and they'll respond with sinister theories about sleeper cells, ethnic chappelles and regional militia. They don't want to win this war.

From the midst of the equine herd rises the bray of Howard Dean. The good doctor, not content with the traditional chairman's role of raising money quietly and preparing to win elections, is now moonlighting as Secretary of Defense (the way fundraising's been going over there, can you really blame him?)
I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.


For one thing, newspapers may report on troop deployments in absolute numbers, but nobody who knows what they're talking about uses those figures. It's all about brigades, divisions, battalions--it's all about accomplishing tasks and carrying out missions. The Pentagon would no more call up "20,000 men" to Afghanistan than you'd call IBM and order "19 cu. feet of server".

For another thing, back in the 1980s we decided that since we really wouldn't need to police foriegn cities, guard thousands of prisoners, or treat thousands of wounded in peacetime, most of those jobs could be farmed out of the regular armed forces into the Reserves and National Guard, and the regular armed forces would be the combat troops. That's why the Abu Ghraib guards came from the National Guard. The National Guard and Reserves are the outfits that can belong in a conflict like this, by design. (When exactly was President Dean going to learn that, before or after his inaugural?)

And finally, what is the Democrat fascination with flying into a country over the horizon to make raids on terrorists before vanishing out of sight? I thought they'd had their fill of that after Mogadishu. I know Rep. Murtha had his fill of it at that time! Why would thirty minutes of minimal force be less effective than twenty-four hours of maximum power?

Rhetorical questions. They don't want to win this war.

No comments: