Wednesday, President Bush is scheduled to make the short trip from Washington to Annapolis, Md., to give a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy assessing progress in Iraq and also in what he calls the broader war on terrorism. The president, who has often made reassuring statements about such progress, should take this opportunity to complement those words with convincing evidence.
Americans deserve to know whether at home they are safer from terrorists today than they were on 9-11. They also deserve to know whether in Iraq progress is being made in taming the terrorist insurgency.
Yes, I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream media would report on the facts surrounding these topics, instead of endlessly harping on the suicide bombings and Vietnam analogies? Why is the press absolutely silent on giving the American people any context by which to judge the true progress of the war?
So how's this for a specific? We win. We defeat the terrorists. We help the Iraqis establish a representative government and a constitution. We help them rebuild their infrastructure--roads, schools, power. We train their troops and fight alongside them until terrorism subsides. "No end but victory." I think that qualifies as a strategy.
What do the Democrats offer? Well, according to golden boy Jack Murtha (whom no one can criticize, since he is a Vietnam veteran--a rule that only applies to Dems and libs, since the Swift Boat Vets were certainly 'fair game' in the last election), and I quote..."There is no exit strategy. The path to victory--victory is not a strategy." (from Hardball transcript)
Victory is not a strategy? Well, is defeat a strategy? Is surrender a strategy?
To help us understand this concept, the Journal Sentinel goes on to explain how a non-victory strategy might work.
The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is the establishment of a target date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. (emphasis mine)
The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is to announce to them when we are going to withdraw? Come again? (Take that, you terrorists! We are going to run away!) The Journal Sentinel editorial writer must have graduated from the French school of warfare....
Iraqi soldiers will have little motivation for the difficult work of fighting terrorists as long as they know the Americans will be there to help them out.
How can they possibly think that the Iraqis have insufficient motivation for fighting terror? This is their country. Their lives are at stake. Their children's futures are at stake. To think that they have no motivation to protect and rebuild their own country is an insult to their integrity and bravery.
Unfortunately, Bush has rejected target dates. Instead, his strategy can be summed up in the phrase, "As they stand up, we will stand down." That is, as Iraq's security forces become better prepared to take on the insurgents and defend their country's fledgling government, America's forces will be able to leave. That process, Bush insists, will not be driven by a calendar.
And I thank God every day for his integrity.
As a practical matter, however, Bush cannot ignore the calendar. Because the war has become unpopular, he will be under irresistible pressure next year to make troop reductions before midterm elections. In fact, plans for such cutbacks have already been made. Also, it is very possible that the Iraqi government will demand a troop reduction; recently, some 100 Iraqi political figures meeting in Cairo called for a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Unlike his political counterparts in the Democratic party (whose hypocrisy was unveiled for all to see on Friday, November 18th, when they spent hours accusing Bush of lying, calling the war a mistake and a quagmire and then refused to vote to withdraw our troops), Bush is more interested in doing the right thing for our country and for the Iraqis than in the latest 'popularity poll' on the war.
Actually, the mere thought of trying to measure the 'popularity' of a war is really ridiculous. No wars are popular. No troops deaths are desirable. No civilian casualties are 'acceptable'. But an America who is unwilling to fight its enemies, to protect its allies, to protect its national interests--that would be an America 'not worth dying for' to quote Cindy Sheehan.
This pressure to reduce U.S. forces adds urgency to the job of training, equipping, motivating and fielding a home-grown Iraqi army and police force. Bush's upbeat remarks about progress in this effort have been echoed by a leading Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who recently returned from Iraq. Lieberman reports, in an opinion article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, that under a strategy of "clear, hold and build," Iraqi forces are now holding several cities formerly occupied by terrorists.
But how long will they hold them, and will they really build? Reports about these Iraqi troops are mixed and therefore confusing. The Pentagon told ABC News in mid-November that only one Iraqi battalion - about 700 troops - is capable of fighting without U.S. help. There are continuing reports of a lack of discipline in the ranks of the Iraqi army and also reports that terrorists and militias have infiltrated Iraqi police units.
That is why Bush needs to supply abundant and, above all, credible evidence when he talks about Iraq in Annapolis today. Only when he stands up with convincing facts, not slogans, will his critics stand down.
No, I think the Journal Sentinel has it backwards. I think it is high time that the opponents of the war start standing up with convincing facts. We need to see their plan. We need to understand their definition of success. We need a serious discussion of our level of commitment to the Iraqi people and to the success of establishing a representative democracy in the middle East. We need to understand the ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal--not only in Iraq, but also in our dealings with Iran and others.
We need our elected representatives to stop the partisan sniping and work together to have a serious debate about the issues and agree on a plan that all can support (and continue to support, even if it becomes uncomfortable or unpopular). But, unfortunately, I don't think the Democrats have it in them.
Maybe, since they don't have a plan, they should cut and run.
No comments:
Post a Comment