Newt Advocates Withdrawl From Iraq?
I remember when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House of Representatives, during the time when he was a thorn in the flesh of the Clinton administration. His Contract With America swept a Republican majority into Congress and it still stands as a symbol of Republican ideals: smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, larger defense, and etc. Newt’s occasional appearances on the Fox News Channel show that the former Speaker is still relevant. But then there was the talk of Newt running for President. There is a big change in a politician’s attitude when they decide to run for the national office. Now I am not sure if Newt is a different kind of politician or not. During a recent speech on the campus of the University of South Dakota, some are saying that Newt is trying to give himself some wiggle room so as to not box himself in to supporting a war that is unpopular in some circles.
Newt Gingrich was in Sioux Falls, South Dakota speaking to a group of students and faculty at the University of South Dakota when he was heard making this statement by the Argus-Leader of Sioux-Falls.
[The] United States should pull out of Iraq and leave only a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Gingrich said during an informal question-and-answer session at the school, according to the newspaper. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
But in an interview on Hannity and Colms, Newt Gingrich says that he said nothing new insisting the United States has to stay and finish the job, gradually pulling out and letting Iraq start to manage their own affairs. He insisted he had not become one of those who want to cut-and-run.
Why the difference in the two stories we may never know. But I do know the intentions of the MSM, it is divide Conservatives. They want another Vietnam.
As a college history professor, Newt knows that comparing Iraq to Germany and Korea is comparing apple to oranges. The United States conquered Germany and ended the German occupation of Europe too. This left only a few stragglers to harass the few remaining American troops. The rest of Europe was in shambles. The only country mustering an army of any size was the USSR and they could ill afford a contest with the United States even if they wanted one. The United States was the big dog and could start to pull out as soon as the war was over. Even though the war was over, the US left troops in Europe to maintain the peace, many of which remain there to this day.
The situation in Iraq is totally different. The Iraqi army was never completely destroyed and terrorists were using the country for training. Other countries, namely Iran and Syria, who do not want a working democracy in Iraq are sending terrorists and supplies to keep the country unstable. While no country can directly confront our nation militarily, they can confront us indirectly. What has begun is a contest of wills. If we lose ours, they win. The Middle East loses another chance at democracy and stability. And the United States loses their security.
Obviously there are no parallels between Germany and Iraq. I think Newt Gingrich know that as well. The MSM on the other hand……
Posts
