I, too, appreciate Gilmore’s military service, but that’s not enough to overtake Marshall

In his latest installment of his defense of Jim Gilmore, STD (I was told he preferred that to Spanky, my apologies) notes Governor Gilmore’s military service.  Now, I can certainly agree with STD that military service is valuable experience and an important symbol of a candidate’s willingness to serve his country in office.  I’m just not sure it is the be-all and end-all for a candidate qualification.

Then again, so does STD.  Take a look at his conclusion regarding then-candidate and current Senator Jim Webb:

James Webb is a notable US Marine Officer, who has served Our Nation with distinction, and I am grateful for it; but I really think he made a “bad call” on the invasion of Iraq, by the Bush/Cheney Administration.  Furthermore, electing an “Anti War” candidate to the US Senate would send the wrong message to our serving members of the US Armed Forces, and to the world in general. 

Indeed, STD was right; electing Webb sent a terrible message to the world, a message that, thankfully, the surge drowned out.

Now, as much as I have criticized Governor Gilmore on Iraq, even I will acknowledge he’s not of Webb’s ilk.  Gilmore supported the liberation of Iraq, and he supported the surge – for a time.  Sadly, on June 18, 2007, he – to paraphrase the great Margaret Thatcher – went wobbly.

Don’t believe me?  I can understand that.  Gilmore hasn’t highlighted this Washington Post op-ed, and once one reads these excerpts, one can see why (emphasis added):

Like you, I reject the Democrats’ policy of an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal on a timetable. Unfortunately, they are playing to the polls to obtain political advantage at home, to the detriment of the United States. But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy. We must find a third way.

“We must find a third way.”  That is not a statement of support for the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy of which it was a part. 

It doesn’t get much better:

As a veteran of the U.S. Army I believe we cannot just abandon Iraq. I believe the only realistic alternative — the least bad option, if you will — is a limited deliberate drawdown of our military men and women and a redeployment of the forces remaining in the region to areas where they can more efficiently and effectively carry out a clearly defined mission.

Now, it is heartening to know the Governor did not want to abandon Iraq, but his insistence on “a limited deliberate drawdown” less than three days after the surge was fully implemented (Reuters) was willfuly ignorant.  Further in this unfortunate vein was his detailed “plan”:

I believe that the American military is on target when officers ask for a mission that includes maintaining — either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.

What we have to remember is that the above “mission” was never requested by General Petraeus, because it was the exact opposite of the counterinsurgency strategy he was and is successfully implementing.  If anything, it was far closer to Rumsfeld’s “light footprint” strategy that failed so miserably prior to 2007.

Politically, the column was even worse: it sent a message that Governor Gilmore was not prepared to trust the President or General Petraeus.  Had the counterinsurgency failed and Gilmore wrote this piece in, say, December, this might be an attempt to find a new solution.  However, coming when it did, smack in the middle of the counterinsurgency and before General Petraeus could even determine its effect, it had the whiff of political opportunism (lest anyone forget, Gilmore at the time was running for President; Ron Paul was largely a nobody; and people were wondering when a GOP candidate would break with the President on Iraq).

Now, as STD has reminded me (and rightly so), I am in no position to assert Gilmore’s motives.  I can only attest to the effect, which was to add Gilmore to the list of Republican critics of the President, and at a time when he needed each and every one of us to stand with him against the defeatist Democrats.  Even John McCain understood (and still understands) that.

To this day, Gilmore has yet to address this.  Yes, he supports the President today, but until he explains these words, he is an easy mark for, well, Mark, who will gladly read these words back to him (and to the Virginia electorate) and ask if Gilmore was being an opportunist then or an opportunist now.

Bob Marshall, by contrast, is crystal clear on Iraq: “Although the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we cannot cut and run . . .”  Not as many words, to be sure, but more importantly, nothing to confuse our men and women in uniform (and the Iraqi people fighting along side them) by calling for a change in direction mid-stream.

To conclude, like STD, I appreciate Jim Gilmore’s service to our country; however (also like STD), I think there must me more to a candidate than that; finally (unlike STD), the “more to it” makes it clear to me (and I hope to most of my fellow Virginia Republicans) that Bob Marshall is our best choice for the U.S. Senate.