A Really, Really Cheesy Mousetrap

There has never been any secret about the distaste held by "progressive" members of the Democratic Party for either the war in Iraq--or the so-called "good war," the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. Similarly there is no secret that these same "progressives" have piled up the federal deficit to numbers with which only astronomers--and "progressives" are comfortable.

Also not to be found in the Secret category is the oft-repeated pledge of then campaigner Obama to the effect that there would be no "middle class tax increase" on his watch.

Now in one of the most sleazy efforts to mousetrap a president that the Geek has either witnessed directly or studied as history, the leaders of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives are talking tax increase on the middle class if President Obama makes the toughest (and least incorrect) choice to deploy additional US troops to the war he described a few months back as being of "necessity." House Ways and Means chairman Rangel has been making the noises to this effect.

Rangel, compared to whom Hugo Chavez is a near-conservative, is being backed in this ploy by the new head of the Democratic Party caucus, John Larson, (who is almost to the left of Daniel Ortega.) Both are described as being close political associates of Lady Botox, House Speaker Pelosi.

The notion is being touted as a "pay as you fight" method to assure that the increased costs attendant upon the deployment of more troops would not add to the federal deficit. Suddenly, miraculously, congressional worthies such as Mr Obey and Mr Frank care, they who have been utterly silent as the tsunami of red flooded from the stimulus package, the bailout measures and--soon to come--the Great New Health Care Millennium. The billions and billions just added up during the silence of Messrs Rangel, Larson, Obey, and Frank until now.

There couldn't possibly be a linkage in timing, could there? No. These public spirited representatives of the vox populi (according to their ears at least) have just now noted that wars cost money--and, golly, we just don't want the war to be a burden on our grandchildren.

They have put a potent political gun to the head of their fellow Democrat and fellow "progressive," the President. Send more troops and we will violate your pledge to the American people.

This sort of ideological games playing has no place in a matter as serious as the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. While the war was fought as wrong as a mountain lion chirping for the totality of the Bush/Cheney years, the US has finally made at least some of the right moves in the past six months. These moves, if continued and reinforced, can assure that the US and its allies can achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing."

The reason for needing to attain this minimum goal is simple. So simple that even the mentioned Congress-wallahs can understand it. We need to inflict an obvious military defeat upon Taliban and al-Qaeda so that these as well as Islamist jihadists generally conclude that attacks on the US or its allies constitute a very poor option.

If the Islamist jihadists of whatsoever stripe or whatever name come to a different conclusion, their attacks will come again at some future date. The attacks might well be on a larger, more destructive, more lethal scale than those of 9/11.

Or, in the alternative, the US and the rest of the West might simply accommodate themselves to a new global reality. That reality would feature an American, a Western, retreat from those areas of the world of greatest centrality to the Islamist jihadists. It might also mean adjusting long standing Western and American political, social, cultural values, and customs so as not to offend the most touchy of Muslims lest they call on their stalwart advocates--the suicide bombers, the middle of the night assassins, the wielders of knives, guns, bombs, and, at some future date, nuclear or radiological equivalents.

To "progressives" such as those mentioned, these sorts of dystopian futures have no relevance. Driven by the seductive appeals of ideology, of elitist certainty as to the correctness, the efficacy, the brilliance of their vision of tomorrow, these individuals are willing to impose great risks on their country's future, their fellow citizens' lives.

In terms of ethics, the middle-class-tax-increase ploy against the war is even more reprehensible, more underhanded, more duplicitous than was the "date certain" approach taken by an earlier generation of Democratic Party "progressives" to end the US involvement in the Wars of the Vietnamese. At least that bunch had the decency to wait until the grunts had come back to the world, the famed "decent interval."

Yes, the Democrats then stood by with stony faces and folded arms to watch the defeat of the South Vietnamese Army we had trained, equipped, and promised to support and supply when the final North Vietnamese push came. The ideologically driven indifference of the Democratic "progressives" did assure that the South was defeated even though that was not objectively necessary. These past congressional figures created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, Rangel, Frank, and the rest want to force the President not to do the right, least incorrect thing. They want to force him to choose between his own falling political stock and the war. Choose between his future in office and the future safety of the nation.

And, they want to do that while the grunts are still grunting and fighting, bashing the mountain sides, going cross eyed looking for IEDs. Killing and dying.

The last time something equal to the action the "progressives" in the House want Mr Obama to take occurred it was on 31 March 68. That was the day Lyndon Johnson said he would not seek reelection. The day the Commander-in-Chief walked away from his troops in the field.

The record shows clearly that the prime effect was in Vietnam. On the guys on the ground. The record shows that in the wake of LBJs collapse of political will both morale and combat efficiency in country dropped fast and hard. Drug use went up. Contact with the enemy declined. The number of fragging incidents went up. Will to fight went the other way.

Sure, back then, in those bad old days, the Army was conscript. Now it is mercenary--whoops! Bad Geek! He meant to write "volunteer." But that difference is in no way directly related to the matters of morale, will to combat, a willingness to keep on going out, facing bad odds even with technology on your side, and taking lumps while hopefully giving more. Pushing on until someone, somewhere can say with honesty, "Mission accomplished. Well done to all hands."

Mr Obama may escape the baited trap. Saner heads in the Democratic Party may prevail. A more suitable target for deficit reduction may emerge. A more rational approach to revenue raising may be discovered.

Even if any or all of these were to happen, the ground truth remains: The "progressives" have shown themselves so ideologically blinded that they were ready, willing, and eager to place their country and all of us who live there at greater risk for decades to come--all for a little bit of belief.