Terrorists, Like Dogs (A Follow Up)

T

Having written last night’s piece, which generated a lot of angry email (and comments over at Red State), here is some interesting news.

Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

“If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people,” said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

About the author

Erick Erickson

2 comments

  • I’m sure you won’t be able to get a liberal democrat to believe this is true. They can’t even understand the logical argument about how their criticizing the progess of the war emboldens the insurgents.

    Some of Kerry’s VVAW hacks get offended when they’re told that their VVAW testimony about war crimes was being used against the POW’s in Vietnam.

    They either have to admit they’re idiots, or selfish & conceited jackasses.

  • The Washington Times’ coverage is so slanted it’s almost comical. That said, we’ll pretend this has an ounce of credibility for a second for the sake of the argument.

    Gary, the inability to absorb criticism is a sign a weakness. Successful democracies (or representative republics if you prefer) are supposed to thrive on constructive criticism. By definition, that is their lifeblood: the ability to argue a point from multiple perspectives. To say no criticism should be offered is an anti-democratic principle.

    On that note, none of this would be an issue if Bush had handled this war right from the get-go. He didn’t. He politicized it, avoiding large offensives for months in trying to avoid casualties in an election year. He dismantled the Iraqi army, which sent the message “we don’t trust you to defend your own country.” Primarily, those two mistakes (along with the 50 percent unemployment rate in many areas of the country) led to the insurgency growing from 12,000 to 50,000 Iraqis under his watch. Instead of owning up to a situation growing worse by the day, he intimidated his own generals into not asking for more troops. He provided no oversight that money sent over there was actually being spent on what it was earmarked for. As a result, squabbles led to much aid sitting around unused for months. The key point: none of this can be blamed on terrorists. Bush’s lack of leadership and competence are ultimately responsible.

    Iraq is going to be FUBAR no matter who’s in office. “Stay the course” means nothing when the course is to ignore problems and hope they go away on their own.

    My vote for Kerry is to avoid two or three more of these episodes, and to not allow these nutjobs carte blanche for up to four Supreme Court justices. One party government is bad for everyone. It was a mess from 1992-1994, and it has been a mess from 2002-2004. Bush is not intelligent enough, responsible enough, or rational enough to hold the office, particularly under that circumstance. In short, he is unfit for command.

    Here’s to hoping for a Kerry win in 2004 and a McCain candidacy in 2008. It’s the only road I see that doesn’t lead to disaster. I’d be prone to vote Republican if a grown-up was running, but not this year.

By Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

Get in touch

You can check me out across the series of tubes known as the internet.