read for yourself the letter to Sen. Clinton, via CNN, who had this leaked to them from somebody...
this article which appeared friday at slate.com, by former policy advisor to Rep. Les Aspin (dovish congressman who was Pres. Clinton's Sec. of Defense), Fred Kaplan, is a perfect example of the hyperbolic extent to which critics of the iraq effort will go to to damage the Bush administration (and in this case help the Hillary! for Prez effort).
in the two-page letter to Sen. Clinton, undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman details the current happenings on the ground in iraq, stating the Pentagon's position, strategic plan, and their hopes for how this strategy will help attain their goals of securing stability. this all amounts to "boilerplate" blather, in the eyes of Kaplan... finally, Edelman gets to the "offending" part (as highlighted by Kaplan, as well as others in the MSM):
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. … Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risk in order to achieve compromises of national reconciliation. …"Edelman concludes:
...As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not related outside of the department.to Kaplan, and others who are helping Hillary! along, Edelman is essentially saying:
"...First, you're practically a traitor for even asking these questions. Second, maybe we do have contingency plans for withdrawal, but we're not going to tell you about them. Third, run along now, little lady, I've got work to do."at every stage of this entire effort in iraq, it seems that we here in the US have a HUGE contingency of citizens who are intent on us "showing our hand" to the enemy. whether it's the New York Times releasing classified information detailing the techniques being used to track communications between suspected terrorists, or Newsweek magazine making the (proven false) claim that Korans were being flushed down toilets at Gitmo, or the constant carping of politicians..."what's OUR PLAN?", "what's our EXIT STRATEGY?"...and the never-ending claim that THE WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO "STIFLE DISSENT"...this whole contigency of the "anti-war" gang seems to think that we exist in a bubble.
for better or for worse, we're in iraq now, and probably stuck there until it's fixed. the enemies of our effort there can't match us "militarily", but they realize that "body counts" don't determine the outcome of a war....wars are won and lost based upon the willingness to fight on. the object of the violence of war is to demoralize the enemy to the point to which they surrender. THIS is why there is an effort to downplay talk of withdrawal. talk of "withdrawal", whether or not it's intended to be interpreted this way, is perceived by an enemy as SURRENDER.
Sen. Clinton's letter to the Pentagon was, i would hope, meant to be an earnest, private inquiry. but, once she got the reply--it was broadcast to the world via the media. cynics may derive from this action that she intended it for political advantage. why else would her campaign make this public?
i didn't detect from Edelman's response any hint that he was calling her a "traitor". he basically told her that the Pentagon wasn't going to broadcast contingency plans. obviously, some of the folks over at the Pentagon realize that the jihadists watch the omnipresent American media and realize that they don't even need spies...we'll tell you everything we're going to do, and we'll broadcast our hand-wringing to the entire planet, like some weird geo-political version of the Dr. Phil show.
UPDATE: Sen. Clinton's response to Def. Secretary Gates, conveniently provided to the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment