Jim Gilmore was weak on Iraq; I cannot support him for Senator

I really wanted to support Jim Gilmore for Senate. I’m one of many who believe he has been underestimated as a Governor. I was ready and eager to see him take on Mark Warner, especially since Warner threw Gilmore under the bus on the budget.

I was, but I am no longer. I simply cannot support Gilmore’s candidacy, and for one simple reason – Gilmore pulled a John Wobbly Warner on Iraq, and that disqualifies him for the Senate, period.

Surprisingly, the local blogosphere seemed to have missed Gilmore’s June 18 wilt in the Washington Post (although I am basing this on a search from three months hence, as this happened just after I went dark). Still it cannot be ignored. Not only does Gilmore publicly express his disapproval of the President’s strategy, he hides behind the tried old shibboleths that typify the yellow-streak Republicans.

Gilmore starts sounding silly in the second paragraph of his abysmal piece (emphasis added):

As you know from my public statements, I have supported your increase in troops in Iraq in the belief that a new initiative was necessary to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion. It has been my position that this troop increase should be given an opportunity to work. Increasingly, however, reports show that attacks on our troops, Iraqi police and civilians are not abating.

It is clear from the statements previously made by your administration that there was never any intention to become embroiled in a guerrilla war, urban or otherwise. American power is not advantaged in such a situation. Trying to fight a guerrilla war in the cities and towns of Iraq has opened opportunities for terrorist enemies such as alQaeda and fostered an environment for a Shiite-Sunni civil war in which we have no stake.

The ignorance in that paragraph is Webb-esque. Iraq has never been in a “Sunni-Shiite civil war,” it has been fighting a double-edged Iranian infiltration, in which both al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army have taken part. As for the “guerrilla war,” what does Gilmore recommend? Letting al Qaeda win it?

In fact, Gilmore doesn’t really answer. Instead, he piously calls for “a third way,” which sounds quite a bit like the way of the Democrats:

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 . . . 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 alQaeda 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.

In other words, Gilmore wanted our troops to return to the very failed plan that led to the pre-surge problems on the first place. He makes exactly the same mistake the Democrats do.

Gilmore the concludes with a classic Webb-like drive-by smear:

American interests come down to protection of our national security, protection of Israel’s right to exist, and averting, if possible, a general war in the Middle East, nuclear or otherwise. Our present conduct in Iraq distracts from or is detrimental to those goals.

Gilmore dropped that political bomb at the very time it became increasingly clear to more and more observers that the American military was taking the fight to the terrorists – an overwhelming majority of whom were and are not Iraqis – and making improvements. Now, Gilmore did not echo Harry “The war is lost” Reid, but he came damn close – far too close for my comfort.

If this were a race for Governor, these issues would take second place to Gilmore’s firm rejection of tax increases. However, this is a race for the United States Senate, and as such, national security must come first.

Therefore, I cannot support Jim Gilmore, and since Tom Davis is no better, I have no choice but to sit on the sidelines until a Republican candidate who supports the mission emerges. One Jim Webb in the Senate is bad enough; we don’t need two.

4 Responses to Jim Gilmore was weak on Iraq; I cannot support him for Senator

  1. James Atticus Bowden says:

    I believe you are over reacting. So, Gilmore isn’t a tactical or operational genius. Maybe he gets strategy better. Or, if he were read on to what is happening – maybe he will see the best choices when the Army Commanders on the ground present their tactical and operational decisions. Or, maybe not.

    The situation is complicated and constantly changing.

  2. My suggestion to everyone is to read the entire article and notice this is not highlighted by DJ:
    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.

    This is BS, and Del. Marshall, who is not a veteran, nor has any experience in other military, national security, or geo-political affairs is going to do what, use nuclear weapons? He is just as hamstrung as the hapless Democratic Gov. Warner on the national security and foreign policy front.

    All Gov. Gilmore is saying (IMHO) in his op-ed piece is that he supports the surge, but in the long run this is an Iraqi affair, and you try somehow to gloss over the fact that Sunni kill shia, like we hunt deer…. All the mullahs have to do is say ‘hunting seaon on’, and it’s like letting loose a convoy of Virginians out here in the valley and telling them there is no bag limit….

    As for an Iranian infiltration, they do have a hand in this, but remember Iraqi Shia shed more blood fighting a four year confilict against their fellow Shia in Iran…… They didn’t rise up against Sadaam they killed fellow Shia. Gov. Gilmore is being very rational about what is going on here…. The day has to come when the Iraqi people take charge of their own defense/affairs, and we are in a supporting role….

  3. […] 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. […]

  4. […] MoveOn.org’s call for a timetable of retreat in Iraq (during the surge I might add — read this) — and it’s no small wonder why Republicans would rather have a strong conservative […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: