The new 'Soldiers of Surrender'
Why the case of the British sailors was so appalling
On March 23, while conducting a routine boarding operation and inspection of a merchant vessel in the waters of the coast of Iraq, fifteen British sailors and Royal Marines were approached by two speedboats full of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen. The armed British surrendered to the armed Iranians without a fight, and within two hours had been taken to Tehran in the Islamic Republic, where they were held captive for just under two weeks.The Brits’ capture raised many questions. For example, why wasn’t their ship, the HMS Cornwall, within range of their operation, so as to provide cover for the rubber inflatable boats (RIBs) from which the boarding teams were operating? Why did the British helicopter tasked with loitering over the RIBs during the boarding operation leave its station? And, most of all, why did fourteen armed British fighting men, and one woman, simply give in, and decide, in the words of Marine Captain Chris Air, that “fighting back was simply not an option?”
The idea of simply surrendering to an armed enemy is antithetical to anything which a trained soldier believes and is taught to do. Doing so in this case – for the stated reason that “a gun battle would risk an escalation of tensions with Iran” – made an already bizarre situation even more so. As a combat veteran, I cannot even begin to fathom the thought process of allowing oneself – and the troops under one’s command – to be taken captive in the territorial waters of the nation which they are assigned to defend so that the enemy capturing them won’t be more hostile.
The United States military has a Code of Conduct which is in place to govern its troops’ actions in situations like this. Article II of this code says, in just so many words, “I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.” Nowhere in the American military’s Code of Conduct is allowance made for simply deciding that “fighting back” isn’t “an option” – especially because it might “risk and escalation of tensions” with the nation which is doing the capturing. Granted, these sailors were British, not American; however, given that, here’s a tip for Captain Chris Air: if armed soldiers from a nation’s Revolutionary Guard are abducting you at gunpoint, then they’ve already “escalated” the “tensions” on their own.
Unfortunately, this act of going quietly, and allowing an enemy to come and abduct them without a fight, was only the beginning of an utterly appalling performance on the part of these fifteen British troops – as well as on the part of their government.
Within days of their capture, the British sailors were being paraded in front of television cameras – a violation of the Geneva Convention – and (led by their officers) were confessing left and right, on camera, to having violated the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty, despite the fact that the closest the RIBs ever got to Iran’s territorial waters was 1.7 nautical miles. Further footage was shown of several of the sailors “smoking and joking,” as they say – lounging around, eating, and playing chess, the men in their uniforms, and the woman , Faye Turney, in a hijab and outergarments.
Article III of the US Code of Conduct says, “If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.” This behavior on the part of the British – the prompt, public confessions to supposed wrongdoing, and the taking part in propaganda films put out over the airwaves throughout the region and the world, clearly demonstrated that these sailors and marines had no interest in resisting their captors, or in maintaining their honor throughout the ordeal.
During their period of detention, according to one lieutenant, the British “were stripped of their uniforms, blindfolded and ordered to stand against a wall with [their] hands bound as people were cocking weapons in the background – and experience which was “an extremely nerve-racking occasion.”
“The detention was…not a pleasant experience,” said the lieutenant. “We as a group held out for as long as we thought appropriate. We then complied…with our captors.”
As long as they felt appropriate? Is that what the British military’s standard is now – to hold, when captured, out as long as the detainee deems appropriate, and then to give in? Beyond the absurdity of the sentiment itself, the reality is that these troops were in custody for two weeks – and at least half of that time, they had been complying with every wish of their captors. It would be very interesting indeed to see these British sailors explain that rationale to men like Col. George “Bud” Day, who spent six years in a North Vietnamese prison (and who was the only Vietnam POW to successfully escape from North Vietnam, though he was recaptured), or Senator John McCain, who to this day cannot even comb his own hair because of the tremendous physical toll of real torture he endured during five and a half years of captivity.
Article IV of the US Code says, “Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.” The British officers, tasked with being the active military’s leaders, only led the charge to give in to their captors. Seeing the captain and the lieutenant on film, confessing to everything short of a full-scale invasion of Iran, absolutely disgusted me personally, as well as every other military veteran who has fought for honor and who has sworn an oath to keep faith with his or her own country.
I have no doubt that the experience was, as the Lieutenant said it, “nerve-wracking” – especially given the combination of being in unknown territory, being held by an enemy which is an unknown quantity (though Iran is well known to the British and American militaries as being actively engaged in killing allied soldiers within Iraq), and being unsure of whether your government knows where you are, or will lift a finger to secure your release. The treatment they actually received, though, was no worse than that which American soldiers undergo during standard SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training. If the British actually consider Iraq – and the waters off its coast – to be a combat zone, then its sailors should be – and should have been – prepared for their hazardous assignment accordingly. Whether these fifteen received such training or not, I do not know, but if they did, their actions make it perfectly clear that they did not learn anything from it.
Article V of the Code of Conduct states, “When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.” The British officers led the way to make such statements, but female captive Faye Turney was possibly more high-profile than her military leaders, as she penned and signed statements and letters not only confessing to the false charge of invading Iran’s territorial waters, but also calling on her own country to “end it’s illegal occupation of Iraq.” Such an act was absolutely disgusting – and that is the nicest description which I can think to give it.
While the fifteen sailors and marines were being held captive, the British government was busily crafting strongly worded statements about the situation, with the dire threat that, if Tehran didn’t release the captives soon, or harmed them in any way, more strongly-worded statements would follow. Given that situation, it becomes more difficult to condemn the actions of the sailors out-of-hand, despite their dismal performance under pressure – for, had I been in their situation, I know full well that I would have questioned whether my government was more interested in coming after me, or in preventing an “escalation of tensions” with the nation which had kidnapped me, and was illegally holding me prisoner. This is not a good situation to be in, regardless of the duration of imprisonment.
Article VII of the Code concludes, “I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.” If these Britons trusted in their nation – or in their God – then they did an absolutely pathetic job of showing it. In their race to capitulate to an enemy, they dishonored themselves, the entirety of the British military, and the United Kingdom itself. What they were focused on during their captivity was not upholding their oath to their country, or maintaining their honor. What they were focused on (as has been admitted by the sailors themselves) was going home, and they were willing to play along with whatever Iran wanted in order to achieve that. That mindset, combined with the drive upon their release (after shaking the hand and kissing the cheek – again on international television – of their captor-in-chief, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) to sell their story to the highest bidder (a privilege usually only awarded to men who receive such high honors as the Victoria Cross; how far greatness has fallen!) exemplifies the current, “me-first” generation which will be responsible for carrying on the West’s tradition of greatness into the future.
I sincerely fear for our future if this group is an example of the best and brightest we have to offer. Given that all fifteen were not present in the propaganda videos, and some had to be cut out of the media’s pictures of the sailors’ release, it is entirely possible that there were a few out of the whole who did not break, who did not give in, and who did not so easily shed their personal honor. Unfortunately, these good men – whichever they may be – have been eclipsed by their comrades, from the officers down, who did not think their country worth the effort. It is a shame, but it is a reality.
We are all glad that the British sailors have safely returned home. The next step should be an inquiry – and the immediate removal from duty of these officers, of Ms. Turney, of the remaining British sailors who aided and abetted their captors, and the leadership of the HMS Cornwall, who, due to their laxness and negligence, were complicit in their own sailors’ capture in the first place.
And that should only be the beginning. Figurative heads must roll, and those who remain must open their eyes and seriously consider their future actions, lest the sun finally set on the fabled British Empire, once and for all.
Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.
Permalink |
|
Iran takes British sailors hostage
Leverage or aggression?
Iran’s latest move against the West is a case of them doing exactly what they said they would.
On Friday, March 23, around 10:30 am Baghdad Time, while conducting a routine merchant ship inspection in the Persian Gulf, fifteen British sailors and Royal Marines – including women – were abducted at gunpoint by Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen, and taken to Tehran, where they are currently being held hostage.This unfortunate act is simply the latest escalation in Iran’s undeclared war on allied forces currently fighting to stabilize Iraq. Previous (and ongoing) actions against the Multinational Forces in Iraq have included the training, funding, and arming of insurgent fighters – and direct participation in the fighting – by has the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
This development, reminiscent of a similar capture of British sailors by Iran in 2004 (though those hostages were quickly released), should not surprise any who have been paying attention to the rhetoric emanating from the Islamic Republic in recent months. Only a week ago, according to an Iranian military official, “a plan to capture American or British coalition troops was formulated by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Security Council in response to the arrest of Iranian officers by US forces in Iraq.”
Only days before that, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly newspaper had threatened the abduction of Americans in Iraq and elsewhere, saying, “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”
Iran’s rationale for this act – and for threatening further hostage-takings – appears to be twofold. First, as mentioned above, they are extremely unhappy about the capture of over Iranian intelligence and paramilitary operatives in Iraq, and are desirous of a bargaining chip with which to negotiate their return. As RedState.com contributor “Streiff” has pointed out, wounded pride may also have been a factor in the decision to exact retribution-in-kind against the West. The Revolutionary Guard, he says, has “suffered a series of painful and public reverses which have to have damaged its credibility with the various centers of power in Tehran as well as holding it up to some degree of ridicule to its proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
“The have lost a general to the West through defection,” he continues, “and have lost track of several other senior Quds Brigade operatives in Iraq. …One has to suspect that they will demand the release of the nearly 400 Iranian agents now in custody as a price for the 15 British men and women now in captivity.”
The second possible factor in the decision to commit this act is Iran’s increasingly precarious international position vis-à-vis their illicit nuclear program. According to the London Times, a “source close to the [Revolutionary] Guard” acknowledged that such tactics as the abduction of allied servicemen “had been approved by Ayatollah Khameni, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take illegal actions if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear program.” This seizure of the fifteen British sailors could very well be an attempt by the Islamic Republic to secure greater leverage in the nuclear situation – particularly in light of the fact that the resolution containing the latest round of sanctions against Iran, voted on (and unanimously passed) the day after the sailors’ capture, was co-authored by Britain.
Regardless of the rationale behind the move, this latest situation has once again presented the West with a decision to make about how best to deal with the rogue state of Iran. The inflammatory rhetoric coming from Tehran has not improved matters. The Iranian government claimed over the weekend to have a full confession from the hostages stating that they had illegally entered Iranian territorial waters and, according to the Sunday Times, a “website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” reported that the sailors (to whom it referred as “insurgents”) will “be charged with espionage – an offense punishable in Iran by death.”
There is little doubt that, despite its threatening and inflammatory statements, the Iranian government will prevent any real harm from coming to these captives. Likewise, there is little reason to believe that they will not be released, like those captured in 2004, before much more time has passed. The country’s hard-line stance had already softened by Monday, when it said that the captives were being questioned “to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was intentional or unintentional” before deciding how to proceed with them – a development which AP writer Nasser Karimi called “the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.”
However, even if Iran relents in the near future and releases these Prisoners of War, a message must still be sent that such acts cannot be taken lightly – lest the Iranian government, and its Revolutionary Guardsmen, be even more emboldened by the lack of a stern, forceful response to such provocations. Their actions in Iraq – illegal acts of war which went virtually unpunished for nearly four years – have finally, with the modification of ROE which accompanied the President’s new war strategy, begun to result in negative consequences in the form of growing numbers of captured operatives.
Iran’s illegal interference in the turbulent domestic affairs of its neighbor, and its actions against the coalition working to achieve order there, is bad enough on its own. However, the fact that the rogue state apparently believes that the capture of its own soldiers and operatives in the act of those illegal foreign operations warrants, as retribution, the also illegal apprehension of foreign sailors in international waters – or thinks that such an act will influence the international community to give it what it wants – both reveals the presence of a dangerous mindset in the leadership of that nation, and the message which we in the West have sent about our resolve and willingness to respond to acts of war against us and our allies.
This abduction of British sailors was a case of the government of Iran doing exactly what it said it would – a fact which should give America pause, and should cause us to reconsider our current unwillingness to act against the Islamic Republic in the face of future, more serious acts against us and our interests. After all, this is a nation whose President has repeatedly spoken of the impending “death of America,” and has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” – and it is a nation which is currently pursuing nuclear weapons.
Had we been taking Iran’s words and threats seriously in the recent past, then this abduction of British sailors might have been avoided altogether.
However, given that we did not, and therefore suffered an act about which Iran practically warned us before carrying it out, we should take this opportunity to ensure that we do not repeat the mistake. At the very least, let us take this incident as an object lesson that words and threats are not simply annoyances to be ignored, but that such statements – especially from the mouths of our self-proclaimed enemies – actually mean something, and that continuing to turn a blind eye to the increasing belligerence of an adversary will not result in defusing tensions, but in emboldening it to commit greater and greater acts of violence against us.
Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.
Permalink |
|
Domestic politics leave President virtually impotent to respond to Iranian acts of war
The rug has been pulled out from under the President’s ability to respond to an aggressive Iran – by his own countrymen.
On Friday, March 23, around 10:30 am Baghdad Time, while conducting a routine merchant ship inspection in the Persian Gulf, fifteen British sailors and Royal Marines – including women – were abducted, at gunpoint, by Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen, who proceeded to take them and their rubber raiding craft back to Iran, where they are currently being held hostage.
This is nowhere near the first example of Iranian interference – or hostile action – in the four-year history of the Iraq war; on the contrary, it is simply the most recent, and most overt, of those acts – any of which could be considered an Act of War against the US or her allies.
The hope that this situation – though clearly more than a simple “misunderstanding” – could be quickly or efficiently resolved, like a similar one in 2004 was, promptly dissipated Friday night when the Iranian government claimed that the British servicemen had “strayed into Iranian territorial waters illegally.” Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement which said in part, “This makes a number of times that British sailors have illegally entered Iranian territorial waters…. They were arrested by border guards for investigation and questioning.”
The following day, a British newspaper quoted an Iranian military official as saying that “a plan to capture American or British coalition troops was formulated by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Security Council” at the beginning of the week “in response to the arrest of Iranian officers by US forces in Iraq.
According to the report:
The decision was reached after a report submitted to Iran’s ground forces commander warned that information on the activities of the Revolutionary Guards and the “Al-Quds Force” in Iraq was being leaked to British and American intelligence agencies following the arrest of senior “Al-Quds Force” officers by US troops in northern Iraq.Besides seeking retaliation for the mounting number of Iranian officers and personnel going missing in Iraq – where they are illegally directing elements of the insurgency, and where between three and four hundred personnel related to the Quds force of the IRG are now in custody – another possible motivation for this action could be an attempt by Iran to secure greater leverage in the increasingly tense nuclear situation – the next measure on which was to be decided in the Security Council the day after these abductions, with a vote on a resolution co-authored by Britain which would impose sanctions on the Persian state for its refusal to cease attempts to acquire nuclear capabilities. A “source close to the [Revolutionary] Guard” acknowledged that such tactics “had been approved by Ayatollah Khameni, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take illegal actions if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear program.”
The Security Council moved on the nuclear situation in spite of the sailors’ kidnap, though, unanimously voting to tighten sanctions on Tehran – a move which, as AP writer Alexandra Olson put it, was “intended to show Tehran that defiance will leave it increasingly isolated.”
The abduction of sailors in international waters alone is a clear casus belli, although, like they did in 2004, Iranian military officials claim that their captives “have admitted to violating [Iran’s] territorial waters.”
This situation appears poised to get worse before it improves, as, according to London’s Sunday Times, a “website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” is reporting that the sailors (whom it referred to as “insurgents”) will be charged with espionage – an offense punishable in Iran by death.
If this stated course of action is carried out, then any question Iran’s having committed an overt act of war will be dissolved. American troops are no less at risk of illegal action by the rogue state; the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly newspaper recently spoke of the abduction of American soldiers, saying, “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”
Sadly, were the worst to happen to these British soldiers – or were American soldiers to be similarly kidnapped and held hostage – any form of retaliation would be nearly impossible, politically, for the US administration. For months, Congressional Democrats and anti-war Leftists have been laying the groundwork for a response to any action against Iran, regardless of how real or how vicious the provocation - and have been chomping at the bit to employ such a response, which would entail the blaming of – and almost certain introduction of articles of impeachment against – President Bush for an attack on Iran which the Left has been claiming for months was being “secretly planned” by an administration which would use any excuse – true or not – to provoke another war.
Still bitter about the Iraq War, these Congressional Democrats would not only go after the administration for any action in response to an unquestionable declaration of war against us and our allies, but would likely attack any means of response at the source, by denying funding to an Iranian war effort, by passing resolution after resolution denouncing the President (with ever-increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric, including, one can have little doubt, the phrase “War Crimes”), by taking up the time of elected and appointed officials and military leaders by holding hearings (or “show trials”), and, doubtless, by attempting to impeach the President.
For a hint of the level of opposition the President would face in his attempt to respond to an Iranian act of war, one need only look at the bombshell rhetoric still being cast about regarding the Iraq war – or at the example set by Congressional Democrats like Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who in a Thursday appearance on Fox News Channel declared his intent “to sponsor a House Resolution seeking Articles of Impeachment against the President for threatening Iran with military action – an act prohibited by the United Nations.” This impeachable “threat” to Iran, as Kucinich sees it, is the President’s repeated statement that “no options are off the table” in the quest to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Given the hysteria over what has largely been nothing to this point, is there any question how far the Left would go to destroy President Bush, and to prevent any type of US retaliation to an act – and an overt declaration – of war against us?
Make no mistake: whether they had any real suspicion that Iran would actually provoke war in the near future or not, the Left has been laying the groundwork for such a development – and for their “BushLied!™,” “I-told-you-so” response – for months, despite mind-numbingly repetitive assertions from the President, from Press Secretary Snow, from Vice President Cheney, from Secretary of State Rice, from Secretary of Defense Gates, and from many, many others that not only are we not plotting to attack Iran, but that such a war was an unimaginably improbable notion, virtually irregardless of Iran’s present or future actions.
These denials have clearly meant far more to Iran, which now feels more emboldened than ever to act against us and our allies, than they have to the Left, at whose deaf ears they have been directed. Left-wing “news” websites have been speaking nearly nonstop of “Bush’s war on Iran,” with almost-daily headlines making such sensationalistic, and fatalistic, statements as “US planning for war with Iran,” “There's time to reconsider Iran attack,” “Iran Attack Could Speed Development of Nuclear Weapons,” “Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran,” “Bush has secret plan to wage war with Iran,” “Bush’s War Heating Up - Attack on Iran Imminent,” and “Woman Colonel Urges Troops to Refuse Orders If US Attacks Iran.” As far back as July 2005, The Nation featured an article accusing the administration of conducting an “Iran war buildup,” and in January of this year published a Scott Ritter screed entitled “Stop the Iran war before it starts,” in which he asserted that “President Bush's State of the Union address proved he is hell-bent on going to war with Iran.”
A recent Rolling Stone article entitled “Iran: The Next War” began: “Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran.”
Liberal blogs, as is their wont, have advanced the level of rhetoric several steps further, denouncing the “many lies about Iran by the White House,” propagating the KnownFact™ that “the Bush Administration has been itching to find an excuse to go to war with Iran,” and calling on Congress to “de-fund the Iraq war immediately,” lest “Bush have extra funds with which he can attack Iran.”
With Friday’s incident, the denouncements – absent any action – of President Bush have been ratcheted even higher. One lefty blog called the authenticity of the British sailor abduction into question, calling it a “repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin incident” carried out by “neocons” who want “to lie their way into another war.”
It looks like we may have the provocation in the Persian Gulf that Bush has been looking for,” said another.
These are, of course, only the blog posts tame enough to be repeated – there have been far more, and far worse, than these examples.
The words and actions of Congressional Democrats have not been much better. Despite the fact that only Congress is authorized to declare war, the outcry from that deliberative body, whose members still claim to have been lied into approving the Iraq war (despite having access to no less intelligence on the matter than the White House), has continued without a letup, with Congressmen falling all over themselves to tell the President that they matter in the war making process.
Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly said that “Congress should assert itself and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) recently introduced legislation to force President Bush to seek congressional authorization before using force against Iran. “This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own,” he said. “We need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities.”
“I’d like to be clear,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). “The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking Congressional authorization.” Said Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): “It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.”
Jack Murtha (D-PA) jumped on board, as well, stating that “we don't have the capability of sustaining a war in Iran” – and Dennis Kucinich, as mentioned above, declared his desire to impeach the President for apparently not saying loudly and often enough that we won’t attack, or retaliate against, Iran, regardless of any provocation whatsoever.
These statements do little but encourage Iran as, combined with the administration’s own repeated words promises not to act regardless of provocation, a clear and unified message is being sent, for the first time since September of 2001, from the shores of America to those who might harm us. However, unlike the aftermath of 9/11, which saw a (very temporarily) unified American front against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the message being sent in this case is the opposite – it is a loud and clear signal to Iran, a nation which has said over and over and over again that America and Israel are the root of the world’s problems and will soon be destroyed, that they have free rein to do whatever they wish, both against Iraq and against the US, with no fear whatsoever of reprisal.
The administration has repeated its desire for peace with Iran ad nauseam. What has been, and is being, done by the anti-war Left and the anti-Bush Democrats in Congress, though, has greatly increased the danger to this country and to its national defense. The hands of our leadership are being bound tighter and tighter, with threats of political and legal retaliation being made against the administration not for possibly acting sine casus, but for even considering taking action in defense of ourselves and our allies, in response to direct affronts and overt acts of war by a nation which has increasingly shown itself in recent months not only to be no friend to America, but to be a dangerous enemy.
The Left has painstakingly crafted the current circumstance in which the administration finds itself, forcing it to ignore any and all provocations which might come from Iran, including troop kidnappings and possibly worse, or be called on the carpet for supposedly “lying America into war once again.” Changing circumstances mean nothing to those in Congress and on the Left whose overarching goal now is political revenge for the Iraq war – and the statement that we are not going to war with Iran, followed by a response to an Iranian declaration of war on us, will be treated as a purposeful misleading of America on the part of the President, and will not be tolerated.
The anti-War Left, and their allies in Congress, have now placed the nation in an untenable position: if America’s President acts to defend his country against an attack by a blatantly hostile nation, he will not only be interfered with (and likely prevented from effectively acting), but will be mercilessly, publicly castigated for acting against a nation he had previously been forced to promise that he would leave alone – and he will have to answer to a Congress which, in the wake of their Iraq embarrassment (and due to their lingering resentment at the impeachment of their last Democratic President), has long been itching to prosecute him to the fullest degree possible – proudly issuing “we told you so’s” to the nation all the while.
This is the state of affairs we currently face – and, while it appears to be one of advantage for the Democrats, the only real winners in this situation are a hostile Iran, and any other nations who wish to harm us.
Permalink |
|