[Ed Dantes]

I made this announcement on my Xanga page, and I want to say it here - I want to launch a grass-roots campaign to become a Congressman in 2008, running as a conservative Democrat for Virginia's second district (Va Beach / Norfolk area). Through the power of the internet (YouTube and message boards, baby!) I'm gonna make this happen. You know, if Rory Fitzpatrick, a non-descript Vancouver Canucks hockey player, can launch a campaign to get him elected to the all-star game through the Internet, maybe I can grab a seat in Congress, too.

I think the best way to lay out my stance on the issues is to go through each hot-button topic one at a time, and discuss them here.

...

I'm sure I can give some flowery introduction to why I'm doing this, but I think I'm going to cut right to the chase. There are plenty of issues that will merit serious consideration during the next few years in the United States, and I hope to address them in the coming days. I want to lay out my stance on health care, taxes, abortion, gay marriage, social security, stem cell research, foreign and domestic policy, farm subsidies (well, maybe not that last one), etc. But at the same time, we all seem to know that there is one issue that tops all the lists these days. Iraq.

IRAQ

First of all, we need to ask ourselves this question... Was it right to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Forgetting everything else that has happened since. Using our knowledge in 2003, should we have invaded?

I would argue "yes".

Here's what the President said before attacking Iraq:

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html)

I should mention to the "Bush Lied, Kids Died" crowd that those were the words of President Bill Clinton, in 1998.

Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world. In the Post 9/11 world, it's difficult to say that a man has terrorized his own people -- and with terror ties himself (NO - he was not linked to 9/11, don't put words in my mouth), it is reasonable to believe that the world would be a better place without him in power.

And our motives, I believe, were pure. We depose a man known for mass graves and rape rooms, and bring elements such as "rule of law" and "representative government" into the heart of the Middle East. That, in turn, would send a message to the rest of the region, where nations of people are oppressed by some caliphate... one where disenfranchised youths turn to militantism as an outlet for their anger. If freedom can work in Iraq, why not Syria? Or Lebanon? Egypt? Libya? Or... Iran?

And of course, most of us war supporters thought that Americans were going to go in there, kick jerk for 10 weeks (max), and come home... Then we can worry about North Korea, or whatever.

Unfortunately, a short-time after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, things went awry. Our officials miscalculated the strength of the insurgency, and failed to prevent militants from neighboring Iran and Syria from entering, and fueling the chaos.

Yet, we pressed on. In the midst of scandal that only damaged the perception of America in the eyes of the people we were trying to save (Abu Ghraib, anyone), Iraqi citizens braved terror attacks to vote in three elections and set up a Constitutional government. That's historic.

And we pressed on, still, incapable of handling the situation. Our leadership admitted that they didn't spend enough time training Iraqi security forces during this time. Our soldiers were getting picked off, two, three a day by terrorists who remote-detonated IEDs. Just a little longer, we all thought. Just a little longer.

And then came the bombing of the Golden Mosque, Feb. 22, 2006. It was probably a nothing story to most people -- explosions in Iraq were far too commonplace and this just seemed like another one. But, this really changed the face of the war.

See, prior to this event, you essentially had three groups in Iraq. You had the Kurds (to the north), who live in an oil-rich environment. They were the ones who Saddam had gassed, and consequently, the Kurds liked us deposing Saddam. There really aren't any problems with the Kurds.

You have the Sunnis, who are the predominate Muslims in the Middle East, but the minority in Iraq (and Iran). Al-Qaeda is affiliated with the Sunnis, for the record. Sunnis didn't exactly like being a minority voice in Iraq, either, especially since the Shiites in the South controlled the oil. And so, they weren't too happy with the new Iraq.

Well, once the Golden Mosque (a Holy Shiite Shrine) was bombed, Shiites got mad at Americans for failing to protect them. And they got mad at the Sunnis, for blowing up their precious shrine. This pretty much slowed the post-war period of "insurgent violence" and switched it to "sectarian violence." And so now the whole country is blowing up each other.

Fed up with everything, Bush has opted for a change in strategy. Up the number of troops, and take them away from patrols and have them root out the bad guys, and once they're gone, keep them out. Our politicians are debating whether or not it should happen...

So where does that leave us, other than an excessively worded column on something we already knew? It takes us to my policy.

1) Let the next surge be our last. Take out the terrorists, and safeguard the cities. And make sure they don't come back. America has had success taking this initiative in the past (notably in the aftermath of the Fallujah disaster). It can work. It must work.

2) Begin a phased withdrawal of troops, starting one year from now and ending three years from now. I detailed why I think that timelines are a good thing in a previous Xanga post (Dec. 5, 2006), and I stand by it. It's time for the Iraqi government to step up.

3) Enlist in the help of Syria. The government in Syria has largely been incompetent since Bashir Assad took power, and yes, they are partially responsible for fanning the insurgency in Iraq. So here's my plan... Merge Iraq and Syria together. Those two nations were basically carved out by the British post-War, it's not like they hate each other. We ask them to help security, and they get access to the vast oil fields in the North and South. In exchange, they have to agree to make peace with Israel. This is win-win for all countries involved -- Israel, Iraq, Syria, and most importantly, the United States.

I understand that the last one is controversial (I ripped part of it off from Pat Robertson), but it makes sense. There are plans out there that involve cutting and running -- but how does that help out the Iraqis in the midst of a civil war? How does that help the United States, remembering the follies of Vietnam (when we left, the VietCong took over)? Just remember, that Iraq isn't the end of it, just like Vietnam wasn't. Terrorism is still alive and well, and we cannot lose Baghdad the way we did Saigon, lest the terrorists find a haven in the heartland of the Middle East... lest we awaken one morning and see one of our cities, smoking, on the news.

Victory in Iraq, in my opinion, is not an option. It is a mandate. But I am confident that the American resolve will prevail. We must.

[01LUGrad]

Interesting ideas (even if they aren't original). I do find the part about Syria making peace with Isreal a little far-fetched. Maybe we could get a definition of what "peace" would look like.

Wait...you said you wanted to be a conservative Democrat and you mentioned stealing an idea from Pat Robertson? You may want to edit that post just in case you are actually a candidate next time around! (those types of comments tend to end up in the Virginian Pilot...or even "Meet the Press")

I like your ideas...let's talk social issues and you might just get a supporter in Tidewater (I live in the 4th district...Forbes country).

[LUconn]

I would not vote for you because I didn't like "The Penalty Box"

[Libertine]

I would encourage any and all Christians that, if you feel God calling you to the public arena, do it.

That said, I agree with most of what you've stated, including the case for war in Iraq. Points 1 and 2 have certain merits and would inspire a good debate, I think, but the whole idea of enlisting Syria's help and then merging it with Iraq is absurd. First, the present administration of Syria has done nothing to show that they can run the country they've got, let alone be a part of one that's twice its current size geographically and with 28 million more people. Secondly, the forced drawing of borders by foreign powers has had a much less than stellar history (see: the Yugoslavian debacle and the current Iraq situation). Third, under any leadership since 1946, Syria has done nothing to inspire the trust of the West, from the numerous military coups to its alliance with the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War to its ongoing history of human rights abuses. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Syria/Iraq would keep any promises, particularly as it pertains to Israel. Long term, this would not solve anything and, in effect, would create an even more troublesome Middle East superpower.
There's a good rule of thumb that says that ideas ripped off from Pat "Let's Nuke the State Department" Robertson are usually bad ideas.

[TDDance234]

The term "conservative Democrat" is a oxy-moron, no matter how you spin it.

[SuperJon]

I knew someone would say that.

[TallyW]

Why do you want to oust Themla Drake? That is a more interesting question considering she'd even probably agree with your positions.

[Ed Dantes]

Why do you want to oust Themla Drake? That is a more interesting question considering she'd even probably agree with your positions.

I heard there was an outside chance that, if Sen. Warner wasn't running for re-election, that she'd gun for the vacant slot.

[Ed Dantes]

The term "conservative Democrat" is a oxy-moron, no matter how you spin it.

I disagree. Take a look at Heath Shuler in North Carolina, who is pro-life and basically pro-everything that a conservative would stand for. Of course, he's labeled as a "moderate" in the press (whereas if a Republican had the same stance, he'd be an "extremist").

And I'm willing to sell my party out for short-term political gain; I figured that aligned me more with Democrats than with the GOP.

[Ed Dantes]

I would not vote for you because I didn't like "The Penalty Box"

I didn't either, which is why I did my best to change it during my time there. And sure, we still had some lousy moments on air, but you shoulda seen it before myself, and to a greater extent, Robbie Adams, arrived.

[Ed Dantes]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Syria/Iraq would keep any promises, particularly as it pertains to Israel. Long term, this would not solve anything and, in effect, would create an even more troublesome Middle East superpower.
There's a good rule of thumb that says that ideas ripped off from Pat "Let's Nuke the State Department" Robertson are usually bad ideas.

Well, you're certainly right about Pat "kill Hugo Chavez" Robertson. But unlike that crazy idea, and the state department flub, I think that the Syria one has a different grounding.

Pat wasn't just talking out of his tail on this one, he was citing a verse in Isaiah talking about the end times:

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day, Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The Lord Almighty will bless them saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance." Isaiah 19: 23-25

Now, Israel has already made peace with Egypt (the only thing positive that came from the Jimmy Carter admin), not much so with the Syrians, who have problems of their own. But Syrians, in the past, have shown that they don't want anyone in the Middle East to start consolidating too much power (as evidenced by their opposition to Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War). I believe that they, as a secular regime inhabited by Sunnis, wouldn't want someone like Iran (religious Shias) making the same kind of power play, which they are doing now.

And, it's also my hope that the UN will get off their tails and start indicting government officials for their hands in the 2005 assassination of Lebanon's Rafik Hariri. If a more moderate government in Syria is put into place, then who knows? An alliance with Iraq may not be out of the question. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting Isaiah.

[Libertine]

That passage is particularly interesting in light of the fact that in 1958, Syria and Egypt actually merged themselves into one nation called the United Arab Republic. That, of course, ended in 1961 w/ yet another Syrian military coup. The prior seven verses, however, mention the Egyptians "being like women", being afraid of Israel, Egyptian cities speaking the "language of Canaan", a monument to the Lord on the Egyptian border and, finally, a plague. I'm thinking this could just as easily be a reference to past events as future ones.

I can see Syria being interested in such an arrangement and, being one of the more secularized Arab countries, I can see how it would be tempting to think it would be a positive arrangement. However, until a more moderate government is put into place there -- and survives --, I stand by my arguments.

[whmatthews]

Why don't you just run like everyone else does. If you are really serious about running, then don't do it on the internet.