Looking for the Easy Exit Out of Iraq

January 13, 2007 | Filed Under Chuck Busch, Congress, Constitution, Foreign Policy, GOP, Islam, Islamofascism, President, Publius Contributor, Society/Culture, The Law, Uncategorized, War on Terror |

-By Chuck Busch

It is completely fair to accuse Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi of refusing to “change course” in Iraq. Unfortunately, the “course” they are stubbornly and steadfastly sticking to is withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East regardless of the tribal maelstrom certain to occur as a result of the subsequent power vacuum left in the region. For the past many months and years, the Democrat leadership has spoken of nothing else but a sudden retreat from the central battlefront in the war with terror, which happens to be Baghdad.

This position was clarified once again in a joint letter by the new Senate and House majority leaders to President Bush expressing their total opposition to the increase of more troops to quell sectarian violence. They wrote, “We, therefore encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops deeper into Iraq.” Their rejection of a possible new strategy was made public even before President Bush had presented his new plan and explained its many aspects.

In the very first paragraph, Harry and Nancy make this absurd comment. “No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq.” That statement alone is indicative of the shortsighted isolated picture that the Democrats hold of the larger war against terrorism and world conditions in general. In their simplistic view, U.S. military operations in Iraq loom larger than of all the enormous strategic crisis’s facing the civilized world such as a nuclear axis of evil of North Korea and Iran, the rise of global Islamofacism, the alignment of Marxist regimes in South and Central America, a regional confrontation over Israel, Syrian domination of Lebanon, genocide in Africa, a Chinese military buildup, a Russian return to anti-western totalitarianism and America’s own undefended borders.

It would have been more comforting to most attentive Americans had they expressed their main concern to be making this country safe and secure. If that were truly their goal, then they would not have such difficulty understanding why a strong Iraq and a stable Middle East is crucial to our national security. Instead, they dogmatically insist that Iraq is a distraction from in the war on terror, which they believe to be confined to Afghanistan and therefore it should be ended at any price.

Their choice of the phrase “finding an end to the war” may be seductively appealing, but is also very ambiguous. What do the duplicitous duo consider to be an acceptable “end” to the war? Is it the absence of US troops in Iraq, the total cessation of section violence, peace with neighboring Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, a strong unity government or three separate states? What horrid conditions are the Democrats willing to accept in return for a fast easy exit out of Iraq? Will the desire for an expedient disengagement of U.S. forces overrule over our obligation to bring about a durable comprehensive solution?

The second paragraph is not much better. “The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change of direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people.” It is highly debatable that this election was solely determined by the Iraqi war. The Democrats gained leadership positions in Congress, because the Republicans failed to lead on a host of conservative issues. Furthermore it is difficult to see how the Iraqi people will benefit by being abandoned and how our troops can react positively to being forced to give up after so much blood and treasure has been spent.

Harry and Nancy repeat their call again for a “long overdue course correction” but are not open minded about the President’s ideas. They cite “news reports” that say a “substantial U.S. troop increase” as being the central component of the administration’s plan. Shouldn’t Harry and Nancy be getting their information from researching various studies and several Pentagon reports rather than the prejudicial mainstream media? Perhaps they should do their homework or at least hear from the president before they air their opinion.

The dual “do nothings” go on to say, “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed.” This is not an accurate description of the campaign described in the Kagan/Keane “Choosing Victory” plan. According to their strategy, US forces will “clear and hold” mixed neighborhoods and then go on to pacify the Anbar province. The operation would not be a short term “surge” followed by a withdrawal, but will require the troops to remain in the contested areas for as long as 18 months. This should give the Iraqi army and its government enough time to take hold. Once security is achieved, normal life can be re-established thus strengthening the government. Economic incentives will be offered to employ Iraqis and motivate them to help in the effort.

The doleful duet insists “there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.” Our experience in Iraq has been just the opposite. Focusing mainly on the political solution has already failed, because military control via martial law was not exercised to its full potential.

The letter goes on to quote several commanding officers, specifically General John Abizaid and General Casey who are about to be replaced, as saying adding more troops could prevent the Iraqi’s from taking on more responsibility. Harry and Nancy said that American’s have sacrificed enough and that “We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.” Such statements cast doubt on whether the Democrats have what it takes to defeat the spread of terrorism in the Middle East.

What the Democrat leadership believes is a “way forward” is actually a huge step backward. They want to begin a “phased redeployment of our troops in the next four to six months, while shifting the principle mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.” That’s all well and good but it ignores the immediate problem of sectarian violence and is therefore not realistic under present conditions.

Isn’t it just a bit naive for Harry and Nancy to think that the fledgling Iraqi army is presently able to undertake what the United States Armed Forces have not been able to do for over two years? How can a political solution be achieved is the citizenry is not safe? Terrorist thugs who have resorted to mass murder are not about to quit unless they are killed or have lost the capacity to fight and the people of Iraq including the Sunni are not going to accept a unity government unless it can provide security.

“A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement.” This doubly dull statement is no doubt a reference to soliciting Iran’s and Syria’s cooperation in ending the very violence they are responsible for fomenting in the first place. This implausible notion was also championed by the Iraq Study Group whose proposals were deemed insignificant.

Harry and Nancy want to “make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not opened.” Statements like that can’t be very reassuring to those Iraqi’s who have risked their lives to support the US liberation effort and the new unity government. Would the terrible twins condemn the Iraqi people to greater terror and death? The US and coalition forces deposed Saddam Hussein. We are morally obligated to stay until a stable and self-sustaining Iraq emerges. It would be reprehensible for our country to turn our backs on the freedom-loving Iraqi’s after having promised them deliverance. If we can’t commit to the establishment of a new Iraqi government, than we are not committed to winning the war against terror.

Harry and Nancy say “it is time to bring the war to a close,” as if the hostility is entirely our own choosing. Doesn’t the dim duo realize the war will not be over until one side loses the will or the capacity to pursue it? Have the timid twosome consciously chosen to accept surrender in the Iraq arena? Considering the many zealous comparisons this pathetic pair has made to America’s defeat in Vietnam, it is not surprising that they are content to oversee another U.S. foreign policy failure and give the enemy a stunning victory.

This sort of narrow-minded, rigid and ignorant attitude toward confronting the 21st Century’s most complex challenges by two prominent leaders of a major political party is very disappointing, but completely predictable. Their position is entirely consistent with their unfounded assertion that Iraq is an unnecessary war and our mere presence in Iraq is causing the insurgency. Both propositions reveal a complete lack of judgment and understanding of the war against Islamofacism, the history of Muslim sectarian rivalry and the struggle for dominance by various neighboring states.

The cowardly couple obviously are not comfortable with the harshness of war, especially an unconventional one where the battle lines are not so easily drawn and the character of the struggle is a direct affront to their liberal preference toward multiculturalism and appealing to the supposed natural goodness of man. It is very disturbing that the new Democrat leaders in the House and the Senate appear to be psychologically and intellectually unprepared to fight a prolonged perhaps generational cultural war against a diabolical evil that has no interest in dialogue, only death and domination.

Bookmark this story to your favorite service: