Democrats only support military action where we have no national interest
re "Dems hedging on U.S. troops in Iraq" (Denver Post/NY Times, 8/11/07)
[This was run by the Denver Post on their letters web site at:
Isn't it amazing to see Democrats continue through history only supporting military action under the condition that we have no national security interest at stake? They oppose military action in Iraq except if it's to protect Iraqis from other Iraqis. What about protecting Americans? Isn’t that what our military is for? And then there's John Edwards' wanting to protect other countries from becoming involved in a civil war. Is it my imagination or does the definition of civil war preclude it being international?
From Bosnia to Somalia, Democrats only support using military force for "feel-good" operations and from World War I until now they oppose using the military to defend our national security. (Yes, there are and have been plenty of Republican isolationists as well, but at least they don't argue to use the military in situations where we shouldn’t.)
The Democrats are so afraid of the anti-American fringe of their base that they step all over themselves to avoid having to take a strong position in defense of our nation. Yet they will risk our blood and treasure to defend a Sunni from a Shi’ite or a Bosnian from a Croatian. It is this sort of complete misunderstanding of the proper role of our military that will likely cost them the next presidential election.
|Print article||This entry was posted by Rossputin on 08/16/07 at 02:34:19 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.|