from: [Eric LC]
to: [Quin Hillyer]
date: Aug 11, 2024, 2:26 PM
subject: You should hold Tim Walz to account for Iran's advance and America's retreat
Mr. Hillyer,
Your 06AUG24 Washington Examiner article, Somehow, Harris made an even worse VP pick than Trump did, focuses on Tim Walz's "extremist" domestic record as Minnesota governor.
However, your criticism has a glaring gap for a Vice President of the United States candidate, which as we all know is a principal foreign policy leadership position: As a Representative for Minnesota in 2007, Tim Walz was instrumental in the House Armed Services Committee for H.Con.Res.63 - Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. Anyone who's on record opposing the Iraq counterinsurgency "surge", let alone a spearhead out front for the Congressional action, should be publicly pilloried and needs to be disqualified from any real influence in American foreign policy, let alone leading our military and foreign affairs as the back-up Commander in Chief.
That Walz, in his formal capacity as an elected American leader, chose to broadcast positive feedback for the terrorist belief and strategy that inflicting greater trauma on the Iraqi people would move America to abandon Iraq to the terrorists is by itself a damning indictment of Walz's intellectual and moral fitness to be VPOTUS. (How much more did Iraqis and our peace operators suffer due to Walz's affirmation of the terrorists' acts?)
Furthermore, when you unpack Walz's actions, notice his muddled rhetoric, like he knew he was wrong, but was acting it out anyway. Walz epitomized this observation from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's book:
The difficulty of extending the surge to September 2007 (when Petraeus would submit his report on progress), much less to the spring of 2008, was underscored by the rhetoric coming from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The frequently used line “We support the troops” coupled with “We totally disagree with their mission” cut no ice with people in uniform. Our kids on the front lines were savvy; they would ask me why the politicians didn’t understand that, in the eyes of the troops, support for them and support for their mission were tied together.
Fortunately, the Iraq "surge" carried forward because President Bush's resolute principled leadership stood fast against Walz's profoundly immoral, anti-strategic attempt to sabotage the essential American-led peace operations with Iraq at the key point that the fate of Iraq was in the balance against the complementary Saddamist and Iran-driven terrorist insurgencies that were trying their best to fake a civil war by zealously terrorizing and mass-murdering the Iraqi people whom America was defending per Public Law 105-338, UNSCR 1483, etc..
Now, you can and should hold Governor Walz to account for his Congressional opposition to the Iraq "surge" in isolation.
However, you should also make a larger example of Walz to hold to account President Obama's radical choices that enabled Iran's advance vis-à-vis America's retreat in the Middle East, which eventually spread to Afghanistan under President Biden, as Walz's Congressional opposition to the Iraq "surge" planted the policy seeds that germinated shortly thereafter under the Obama administration.
The primary enabler for Iran's advance is Obama's pivotal choice to contravene both the cardinal precedent of post-World War Two American leadership of the free world and the conditions-based US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement by very prematurely cutting off the essential US-led peace operations with Iraq despite the vulnerability of nascent post-Saddam Iraq versus the constant threat of Iran next door coupled with the growing threat on the other side from the degenerating Arab Spring in Syria.
Imagine if President Eisenhower had chosen to radically deviate with similarly vulnerable Germany and Korea in the 1950s like Obama did with Iraq. The complementary threats to Iraq were at least as tangible and commonly understood as the Communist bloc threat that informed the US military presence in Europe and Asia that continues steadfast to this day. Yet Obama changed course with Iraq anyway to make America retreat and enable Iran, bringing the malignant policy seeds planted by Walz to fruition.
Once you lay out the case holding Tim Walz to account for opposing the Iraq "surge" and consequently, President Obama's irresponsible exit from Iraq and empowerment of Iran, you'll also be able to tie Walz's malfeasance on Iraq to Vice President Harris's role in President Biden's immoral, anti-strategic Afghanistan exit, which is a derivative of President Obama's Iraq exit.
By association, you'll also be able to paint your "MAGA world" (Hillyer) detractors like Tim Carney with the same critical brush given that, as Secretary Gates noted, it wasn't only Democrats that immorally and anti-strategically opposed the Iraq "surge".
Here are OIF FAQ resources to help you construct the narrative for this recommendation:
Basic background context: The Iraq intervention, including OIF's nation-building peace operations, demonstrably was correctly decided by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in the first place. The controlling law and policy are clear, and on the determinative facts, the case against Saddam is substantiated. With President Bush's vital corrective leadership, the American-led coalition was succeeding and progressing in the epochal competition over strategically vital Iraq and the greater War on Terror by the close of the Bush administration.
To wit, see the OIF FAQ epilogue answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory" and the OIF FAQ retrospective #bushwaswinning section.
President Obama inherited a hard-earned winning hand from Bush and only needed to faithfully stay the course like President Eisenhower faithfully followed President Truman in less conducive conditions than Obama inherited. President Obama, instead, chose to deviate from Bush and bring to fruition Tim Walz's malignant policy seeds, thereby causing the current degenerated state of affairs.
See January 2014 OIF FAQ post Infuriating for my anger over the essential harm caused by the Obama deviation.
Note that this task is not as intrinsically simple as the basic task of correcting the expert-fabricated false narrative of the Iraq Syndrome since it doesn't have the same kind of thorough, straightforward, plainly stated primary law and fact sources that define OIF's actual justification. However, you'll be able to draw on a slew of industry experts: See the table of sources and my commentary at OIF FAQ post An irresponsible exit from Iraq. You can also pick from the appropriate experts addressed in my Review of the American Enterprise Institute's "The Iraq War Series 20 Years Later".
Correcting our nation's course requires you to hold to account culprits like Tim Walz who planted the malignant policy seeds that misdirected our course. His VPOTUS candidacy is a fortuitous window of opportunity for you to do that.
PREFACE: The e-mail to James Fallows is a customized version of the variant to Melvyn Leffler of the original to Quin Hillyer:
Professor Leffler,
In the 27MAR3 AEI "The Iraq War Series: Operation Iraqi Freedom" panel discussion you said, "One lesson of this is to reexamine fundamental assumptions and to be able to step back". Just so. That's why I reached out to you with correction of the faulty "fundamental assumptions" in your panel discussion which plainly contradicted the primary law and fact sources that define OIF's justification.
On the same principle, you should apply the lesson to Tim Walz and hold him to account for opposing the Iraq "surge".
As a Representative for Minnesota in 2007, Governor Walz was instrumental in the House Armed Services Committee ...
from: [Eric LC]
to: [James Fallows]
date: Aug 22, 2024, 2:10 AM
subject: You should hold Tim Walz to account for opposing the Iraq "surge"
Mr. Fallows,
Your 30JUL24 Breaking the News post, Election Countdown, 99 Days to Go: Who Is Tim Walz?, wrongly states that "Dick Cheney mattered in pushing George W. Bush toward disaster in Iraq". In fact, it was Tim Walz who led Barack Obama "toward disaster in Iraq".
You rightly point out that "Once the election is over and the team is in office, the character, experience, and views of vice presidents have of course mattered tremendously...And vice presidents who were suddenly elevated, like Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson, have been hugely consequential". As we all know, Vice President of the United States is a principal foreign policy leadership position, and in that aspect, Governor Walz's record is disqualifying: As a Representative for Minnesota in 2007, Walz was instrumental in the House Armed Services Committee for H.Con.Res.63 - Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Anyone—Democrat or Republican—who's on record opposing the Iraq counterinsurgency "surge", let alone a spearhead out front for the Congressional action, should be publicly pilloried and needs to be disqualified from any real influence in American foreign policy, let alone leading our military and foreign affairs as the back-up Commander in Chief. That Walz, in his formal capacity as an elected American official, chose to broadcast positive feedback for the terrorist belief and strategy that inflicting greater trauma on the Iraqi people would move America to abandon Iraq to the terrorists is by itself a damning indictment of Walz's intellectual and moral fitness to be VPOTUS. (How much more did Iraqis and our peace operators suffer due to Walz's affirmation of the terrorists' acts?)
Furthermore, when you unpack Walz's actions, notice his muddled rhetoric, like he knew as a soldier that what he was doing was wrong, but acted it out anyway for the politics. Walz epitomized this observation from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's book:
The difficulty of extending the surge to September 2007 (when Petraeus would submit his report on progress), much less to the spring of 2008, was underscored by the rhetoric coming from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The frequently used line “We support the troops” coupled with “We totally disagree with their mission” cut no ice with people in uniform. Our kids on the front lines were savvy; they would ask me why the politicians didn’t understand that, in the eyes of the troops, support for them and support for their mission were tied together.
Fortunately, the Iraq "surge" carried forward because President Bush's resolute principled leadership stood fast against Walz's profoundly immoral, anti-strategic attempt to sabotage the essential American-led peace operations with Iraq at the key point that the fate of Iraq was in the balance against the complementary Saddamist and Iran-driven terrorist insurgencies that were trying their best to fake a civil war by zealously terrorizing and mass-murdering the Iraqi people whom America was defending per Public Law 105-338, UNSCR 1483, etc..
Now, you can and should hold Governor Walz to account for his Congressional opposition to the Iraq "surge" in isolation. He needs to learn the lesson.
However, you should also make a larger example of Walz to hold to account President Obama's radical choices that enabled Iran's advance vis-à-vis America's retreat in the Middle East, which eventually spread to Afghanistan under President Biden, as Walz's Congressional opposition to the Iraq "surge" planted the policy seeds that germinated shortly thereafter under the Obama administration.
The primary enabler for Iran's advance is Obama's pivotal choice to contravene both the cardinal precedent of post-World War Two American leadership of the free world and the conditions-based US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement by very prematurely cutting off the essential US-led peace operations with Iraq despite the vulnerability of nascent post-Saddam Iraq versus the constant threat of Iran next door coupled with the growing threat on the other side from the degenerating Arab Spring in Syria.
Imagine if President Eisenhower had chosen to radically deviate with similarly vulnerable Germany and Korea in the 1950s like Obama did with Iraq. The complementary threats to Iraq were at least as tangible and commonly understood as the Communist bloc threat that informed the US military presence in Europe and Asia that continues steadfast to this day. Yet Obama changed course with Iraq anyway to make America retreat and enable Iran, bringing the malignant policy seeds planted by Walz to fruition.
Once you lay out the case holding Tim Walz to account for opposing the Iraq "surge" and consequently, President Obama's irresponsible exit from Iraq and empowerment of Iran, you'll also be able to tie Walz's malfeasance on Iraq to Vice President Harris's role in President Biden's immoral, anti-strategic Afghanistan exit, which is a derivative of President Obama's Iraq exit. They all need to learn that lesson.
Keep in mind the lesson isn't one-sided. By association, you'll be able to paint the 'MAGA' faction, such as Tim Carney, with the same critical brush given that, as Secretary Gates noted, it wasn't only Democrats that immorally and anti-strategically opposed the Iraq "surge". As such, it isn't only Democrats responsible for our Afghanistan exit.
Here are OIF FAQ resources to help you construct the narrative for this recommendation:
Basic background context: The Iraq intervention, including OIF's nation-building peace operations, demonstrably was correctly decided by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in the first place. The controlling law and policy are clear, and on the determinative facts, the case against Saddam is substantiated. With President Bush's vital corrective leadership, the American-led coalition was succeeding and progressing in the epochal competition over strategically vital Iraq and the greater War on Terror by the close of the Bush administration.
To wit, see the OIF FAQ epilogue answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory" and the OIF FAQ retrospective #bushwaswinning section.
President Obama inherited a hard-earned winning hand from Bush and only needed to faithfully stay the course like President Eisenhower faithfully followed President Truman in less conducive conditions than Obama inherited. President Obama, instead, chose to deviate from Bush and bring to fruition Tim Walz's malignant policy seeds, thereby causing the current degenerated state of affairs.
See January 2014 OIF FAQ post Infuriating for my anger over the essential harm caused by the Obama deviation.
Note that this task is not as intrinsically simple as the basic task of correcting the expert-fabricated false narrative of the Iraq Syndrome since it doesn't have the same kind of thorough, straightforward, plainly stated primary law and fact sources that define OIF's justification. However, you'll be able to draw on a slew of industry experts: See the table of sources and my commentary at OIF FAQ post An irresponsible exit from Iraq. You can also pick from the appropriate experts addressed in my Review of the American Enterprise Institute's "The Iraq War Series 20 Years Later".
Correcting our nation's course requires you to hold to account culprits like Tim Walz who planted the malignant policy seeds that misdirected our course. His VPOTUS candidacy is a fortuitous window of opportunity for you to do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment