Is Wayne Gilchrest A Defeatist?

….and for that reason he has to go. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason…..the problem is a forest and trees kinda thing.

We are at WAR with Islamofascist fanatics whose only purpose in life is to carry the sword and kill all the non-believers….translated:: kill all Americans, and other Westerners who are the infidels….and reduce their homelands to rubble.

The BATTLEFIELD is Iraq. Our military did accomplish the original mission in Iraq, by ridding them of the tyranny perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. Al-Quaida decided this is where the showdown at the OK Corral was gonna happen…

I’m not a huge Gilchrest fan, but I need to stand up for his stance on this issue. Calling him a “defeatist” presumes that we can actually win this war. There is probably some measure whereby we will eventually declare victory and pull out (just like we did in Vietnam), but I highly doubt we’ll make Iraq a functioning democracy through our military might. If Iraq is to function as a country, it is going to have to do it itself. Our adventure there has proven that we cannot do it for them. All that happens is that our troops die in vain.

Furthermore, by being in Iraq all we do is encourage more Muslims to hate us. We are increasing the supply of terrorists every day we continue there. We are decreasing our already-depleted store of goodwill with average Muslims every day we remain there. We are making ourselves less safe every day we remain there.

And it certainly isn’t “treason,” as the comment above says, to oppose the Iraq war. The folks fighting in Iraq aren’t attacking the U.S. They aren’t trying to change our government. They are fighting to impose their views on Iraq. Similarly, the troops over there are not defending our nation. They are fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, certainly, but even if Iraq completely falls apart, it will not destroy our country. To say we must continue letting our soldiers get killed because we’ve “committed blood and treasure” there is ridiculous. To continue having our soldiers die for a policy that will never work is the height of folly.

I won’t be voting for Gilchrest, but I do admire his stance on the war.

Marc,

With all due respect, if you are going to argue then attack the argument. Don’t just pick a straw man and then argue against it.

As I stated in the first line of my post, Gilchrest is not a defeatist. Unfortunately his stance against the war in Congress aids those that are. I fully understand where Rep. Gilchrest is coming from and I respect it but for him to work with those whose obvious agenda is to tear down the Bush administration rather than enact good foreign policy for our country is disgraceful.

I am not a fan of George W. Bush. I am opposed to the war on religious and policy grounds. I will however not participate in a battle where the ultimate goal is to destroy the Bush administration and the Republican party at the expense of those who are sacrificing for our benefit (The men and women serving our country as well as their families).

As I pointed out the other day, look at who is supporting Gilchrest in his opposition to the war. These people always believe that America is wrong. They always hope (openly or not) for the defeat of our nation.

Cato,

I wasn’t attacking any strawman. The previous comment on this post said that Gilchrest was engaged in treason. While you certainly have a more nuanced and intelligent view, there are definitely those out there who hold the simplistic notion that opposing this war is “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” My comments were more directed at that sentiment than your post.

Furthermore, you state once again that soldiers are sacrificing for “our benefit.” No, they aren’t. They are sacrificing for the benefit of the Iraqi people. There is a case to be made that’s in our national interest, but I don’t buy it. There is no case to be made, however, that losing in Iraq somehow threatens our nation or our freedom.

And I agree with you that many of the anti-war people are disgraceful. I used to live in Washington, D.C., and saw many times the sordid group of, as you call them, defeatists that came out to protest. I often remarked to my wife that even though I’m anti-war, I certainly didn’t want to be allied with those people.

It’s the nature of politics, however, that no matter what position you take, you’re likely to attract a fringe group of unsavory characters who have similar views. I used to work for a pro-gun Senator, for instance. That position attracted vocal support from a certain element of our state’s population that was pro-gun but also racist and radically anti-government. You can’t change your position based on the fact that a few nuts also support it. Yes, Gilchrest is receiving support from some people who always believe America is wrong. But he’s also supported by a wide variety of people who believe that this war is wrong.