HoodaThunk?

It is no secret to anyone who reads this blog that I’m a supporter of the basic strategy of the GWOT. It is a losing proposition to address terrorism as a law enforcement issue, to think that terrorism is somehow our fault and that appeasement can get us back to the peace we enjoyed before islamic extremists decided that blowing us up was great fun, and – most importantly – that pulling out of the fighting and hunkering down at home will provide all the necessary protection we need.

Terrorism is an act of war, not a crime. There is no wrong or offense that justifies the use of terrorism against innocent civilians. The islamic extremists who make use of terrorism have no interest in engaging in any dialog that does not involve our surrender and have no interest in negotiating a peaceful coexistence. The best defense – in the end, the only defense – against these terrorists is to go on the offensive against them, attack them where they live, and neutralize their ability to bring terror attacks against our nation, our people, and our allies.

People whose lives are improving, who feel empowered to speak their minds secure in the knowledge that – so long as they are not advocating violence against their neighbors – they won’t be killed or imprisoned for it, and are free to live their lives as they see fit (again, so long as they’re not doing so at the expense of their neighbor’s freedoms) don’t engage in terrorism. They don’t tolerate terrorists in their midst. They’re busy making their investments in the future and they realize that when they’re better off, their neighbors become better off and vice versa. The one and only form of society and government that has achieved this state for extended periods of time has been that of a democracy, representative or otherwise. It is in America’s best interests to have, as neighbors and friends, as many democracies as there can be.

To those ends, I support the war efforts currently underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. After yesterday’s vote in the House on the despicable concept of setting the stage to hamstring and, ultimately, derail the President’s execution of wartime strategy it has become clear that the overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House do not share my support of the war effort. In spite of repeated denials, it is also clear that they do not support the troops in the field and, specifically, their commander General Petraeus. Now, given the rhetoric over the past 5 years, this does not surprise me. After the elections in November, I stated my beliefs that the new Democratic majority in Congress would introduce measures to pull funding for the military. Yesterday’s vote was the groundwork laid for that eventuality and I’m still within my 60-day window for that to occur. The Dems have proven a bit more canny in holding back on those measures, but just listen to people like John Murtha and you’ll hear it coming. Soon.

While the MSM shouts to the sky that the GOP in the House “sent a rebuke” to the President and paints a picture of mass defection from the President, the simple fact is that only 17 Republicans voted for the measure. That amounts to about 9% of the House GOP. Hardly a rebuke. However…

When this type of bill was being considered in the Senate, I and 30,000+ like-minded folks signed a pledge that stated, in no uncertain terms, that if the NRSC didn’t explicitly state that they would not use their funds to support any GOP Senator who voted in the affirmative on a resolution like the House just passed, we would provide not 1 penny of donations to the NRSC. Apparently, the NRCC didn’t get the hint. Radio host, author, and blogger Hugh Hewitt has had on his show literally every member of the GOP’s leadership in the past several days and every one of them has made it clear that both the NRSC and the NRCC will provide funds to any incumbent, regardless of their position on these resolution.

So be it.

With the House’s vote yesterday and the NRCC’s stance on their funding of Representatives who voted in the affirmative, I will now give precisely zero to the NRCC until either their stance changes or every one of those GOP House members who voted for the resolution are gone. The resolution passed in the House did nothing but lay the groundwork for a precipitous withdrawl, let our troops know that the House has no faith in their mission nor in their ability to complete it successfully, and – most dangerously – gives our enemies a real hope that they can just wait us out. The losses in the elections in 2000 and 2004 hopelessly poisoned the Democrat’s attitudes toward the response we need to give to terrorists. The GOP members of the House have no such excuse and their vote yesterday was simply another move on their political chessboards. They don’t deserve the party’s support when it’s clear they’ll desert the party when it suits them.

To that end, a new caucus has risen – The Victory Caucus. Comprised, I am sure, of a significant part of those who signed the NRSC Pledge, the purpose of the Caucus is to support the cause of victory and to oppose those who would repeat the mistakes of the past by undermining the war effort. From a post at the Caucus by N.Z. Bear:

So the House vote is over , and the Democrats have had their day and their defeatist, non-binding resolution. So what do we do now?

We begin organizing in earnest to ensure that in November 2008, voters will have a slate of strong candidates who believe in Victory.

This will be a long and serious effort, but it starts now. We have established a team within the site that will focus on identifying strong candidates — veterans, ideally — as well as teams devoted to identifying White Flag Republicans and their antimatter opposites, the Blue Dog Democrats. These three groups will be at the forefront of our efforts to identify the districts where we can do the most good: whether that is to replace a defeatist Democrat with a new Republican victory candidate — or to help a Blue Dog Democrat who is strong on the war take down a White Flag Republican. Here, party comes second: victory — and country — come first.

Emphasis mine. It’s my belief that Republicans, in general, have been more serious about winning this war we’re in but it’s clear that there are Republicans who aren’t. It’s also clear that there are Democrats who are. While other issues do come into it, and I won’t be supporting a Democrat who’s right on the war and wrong on everything else, being a supporter of victory carries a lot of weight with me. I’ve joined others who feel the same.

If you’d like to know more, follow the Victory Caucus link over there on the right side of this page.

Technorati Tags: Victory Caucus, GOP, GWOT