Congressional Democrats are dangerously close to undercutting U.S. national security for the sake of scoring political points against President Trump. Shame on them.
The subject is Iran. The Trump administration is quite openly moving major military resources nearer Iran, saying it has significant intelligence about Iranian threats to U.S. assets. Trump’s national security team, a bit belatedly, briefed numerous members of Congress earlier this week about those threats. Democrats responded by aiming more flak at Trump than at Iran.
One unnamed Democratic senator expressed “real misgivings about how serious this is and how much is a creation of the administration’s own provocative policy.” Added Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego: “I truly believe that the intel is being misinterpreted and misrepresented by Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo, by [National Security Adviser John] Bolton and other people that do want us to go to war in Iran as a repeat to Iraq.” The tenor of those remarks — that the administration is war-happy and dishonest about the intelligence — was repeated by other Democrats.
This behavior is unconscionable.
Members of Congress, of course, have every right to ask tough questions, especially but not only behind closed doors, about any administration’s military maneuvers. But to so openly, and rather slanderously, accuse the secretaries of state and defense, the national security adviser, and the president of dishonesty in furtherance of warmongering, while not even bothering to offer words of condemnation against evil enemies such as the Iranian government, is to undercut U.S. forces at a crucial time.
As a better option, one can emerge from a briefing and responsibly say something like: “Well, I see why the intelligence is worrisome, and we must send a clear signal to Iran that the United States will respond with overwhelming force against any attack on our assets. I don’t necessarily interpret the intelligence the same way the administration does, though, and I urge them to act carefully so as not to precipitate a war while trying to deter one. I’m not sold yet on the steps the administration is taking —but let this be perfectly clear: Iran is a malevolent actor, and it must not be allowed to bully its neighbors, threaten the United States, or support terrorism.”
That sort of honorable dissent would avoid questioning the motives or integrity of the president’s Cabinet members and avoids emboldening Iran into thinking the president acts from a position of domestic weakness.
It also has the virtue of being more tethered to reality than the Democrats’ wild, partisan attacks.
Heaven knows Trump has many faults, more than a few of them serious ones. Yet among the very few stances on which he has not wavered for more than a decade is his opposition to use of American armed forces as the world’s policemen. Do these Democrats really think Trump is itching, or scheming, to gin up an excuse for war? Do they think he’s cavalier about the use of American troops? And do they really think Pompeo and our national intelligence agencies are deliberately skewing available information so as to embroil us in battle?
If they do, they are fools. If they don’t, but say these things anyway, then they are unpatriotic, partisan hacks.
The word “unpatriotic” is used advisedly here. Dissent and questions aren’t unpatriotic. What’s unpatriotic is to dishonestly undermine the nation’s president through the use of political talking points one doesn’t even believe against a clearly evil foe in order to score political points.
The United States should tread carefully in matters of potential armed conflict. Politicians should tread carefully so as not to weaken our commander in chief’s ability to use force, or its threat, in legitimate defense of American interests.
