Jay Reding.com

The White House has released its National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, a 35-page document outlining the Administration’s plans and vision for Iraq. To bloggers, this is all familiar, but it’s about time that the Administration made it quite clear why victory in Iraq is critical to the War on Terrorism, why victory in Iraq is achievable, and precisely how we plan to win this war. The document does a great job of outlining all of that.

If there’s one problem I have with it it’s that we needed to have this earlier. Bush could have avoided a lot of criticism had he released something like this month earlier. It would avoid the constant sniping about having no “exit strategy” for Iraq and prevented a good deal of political damage to the Administration. Releasing this document while under such heavy political pressure from the Surrender Wing of the Democratic Party (surrendering when even the French call such an action irresponsible and ill-advised!) looks like a move from weakness - and it almost certainly is. However, as they say, better late than never.

The President has a chance to recover some of the ground lost on Iraq by forging a bipartisan consensus on Iraq. Many prominent Democrats agree that leaving Iraq before the job was done would be a disaster. Already former Gov. Mark Warner, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton have stated that a pullout on an arbitrary timetable like the Murtha plan would enact would be a disaster. Both John McCain and Joe Lieberman are on board with the President’s plan or something like it.

In the end, what matters is not the approval ratings of George W. Bush or even who gets how many seats in the midterm elections. Partisan politics is nothing compared to the future of Iraq and the Middle East. If we allow Iraq to fall into chaos we will have not only abandoned our stated commitment to democracy, but greatly endangered our own national security. We cannot afford the price of failure in Iraq. If that means that Bush has to reach out to Democrats and make his plan look like it was their idea all along, so be it.

The exit strategy for Iraq should never be based upon timetables or politics, but on the ability of the Iraqi people to be free from terrorist intimidation and brutal oppression. The President has done a middling job of getting his message across, made all the much harder by the anti-Bush monomania of the mainstream media. Had the war been defended as well by the President as it had been by the blogosphere, the polling numbers on the war would not have slipped so far.

The President has an opportunity to stand together with Senators Lieberman and McCain, Representatives Mike Sodrel and Jim Marshall, Republicans and Democrats, and state clearly that America will not tire, falter, or fail in the pursuit of a more democratic Middle East. The interests of our national security cannot be met by allowing the Middle East to continue to be a petri dish for terrorism. Even if tomorrow Osama bin Laden’s head was mounted on a pike at the White House gate, we would still be at dire risk. The only way to achieve victory on terrorism is to change the conditions in the Middle East that spawn them. And those conditions are the direct cause of an autocratic political system that systematically oppresses its people and denies them the basic rights of citizenship and self-expression.

President Bush has done the right thing by providing a concrete and clear plan, albeit later than he should and from a position of political weakness. However, by January of 2009 George W. Bush becomes a historical footnote, but what we do not in Iraq will have repercussions that will echo for decades onwards. Victory in Iraq will leave the Middle East a freer and more prosperous place that will no longer be a hotbed of terrorism and radicalism. Failure in Iraq means a Middle East that is even more radicalized and dangerous that in was before, and an America whose will and strength will have been shown to be easy to break. We cannot, we must not, and we shall not allow that to happen.

I have a lot of respect for Senator Joe Lieberman, who has been one of the few Democrats to carry on the honorable legacy of Henry Truman, Scoop Jackson, and other strong leaders of the Democratic Party. I may not always agree with the Senator on a lot of issues, but on Iraq he provides and eloquent and passionate defense of the Iraqi people in their fight against terrorism:

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Lieberman, much to his credit, understands the nature of this war. We’re fighting terrorism in Iraq, there can be no doubt of that. Al-Qaeda has joined us in battle there, and it would be deeply irresponsible for us to simply abandon that battle. What message would we send to al-Qaeda by once again proving bin Laden’s belief that we have neither the courage nor the will to fight? How can one possibly reconcile a doctrine that would be rightly seen as an admission of weakness and defeat with prosecuting the war on terrorism to its fullest? Lieberman clearly understands the massive internal contradiction of that argument.

Furthermore, Lieberman touches on something that I think the President must strongly address tomorrow at West Point - this isn’t a war against Iraq, this is a war in which the interests of Iraq and America are one. Not only do we have the same interests in defeating terrorism and leaving Iraq a safe place to live, but what would a surrender say about our commitment to human rights as a nation? Do we merely play lip service to the concepts of democracy and human rights but would leave 27 million to anarchy and slaughter for what inevitably amounts to short-term political gain? Actions speak louder the words, and for all the hand-wringing about how we’re perceived because of Iraq, how would posterity judge us if we broke Iraq and left it broken? We owe it to Iraq, and we owe it to ourselves to finish the job and finish it right.

Lieberman also notes something important that the President should address:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration’s recent use of the banner “clear, hold and build” accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

Our initial reconstruction strategy was a disaster. The CPA did the best it could under difficult circumstances. We made a lot of mistakes, but as Lieberman notes, we have a strategy that works. We never had the ability to hold territory in Iraq, and even if we had the manpower, holding Iraq would only further cement the idea that we were foreign occupiers. The only way to effectively pacify Iraq over the long term is to have Iraqi units capable of keeping the peace. Slowly but surely, that is what is happening. Condoleezza Rice has taken over from the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis and instituted the “clear, hold, and build” policy which is the best policy for the long-term stability of Iraq. Taking out the terrorists helps, but unless Iraqis can build up their country on their own, we could never stop the violence as much as is necessary.

Lieberman is right. The media is spinning this war into a loss while our soldiers and their Iraqi compatriots are making palpable progress with each passing day. Even none other than former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin realizes that an artificial timetable in Iraq would be a disaster for thr region. Our war on terrror requires us to finish the job in Iraq, and thankfully there are leaders on both sides who are willing to put partisanship aside and do what’s right for the future of this country and for a more peaceful world.

The Washington Post makes note that 70% of the American public thinks that Democratic criticism hurts troop morale and is being made for little more than partisan gain:

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”

Jeff Goldstein has some interesting thoughts on this poll. In general, I agree with his analysis. The Democrats are painting themselves once again as the party of pessimism, defeatism, and weakness. The position that the Democratic Party is credible on national defense doesn’t even begin to fly when they’re advocating surrendering to al-Qaeda. We’re not fighting Iraq now, we’re fighting al-Qaeda with the Iraqis at our sides. Does anyone really believe that abandoning the field of battle to al-Qaeda is a sane strategy for dealing with terrorism? Especially since we’d almost inevitably be drawn back into Iraq to take care of the problem we would have created.

The American public doesn’t trust the media in the slightest. The last Kennedy Center poll found that the media was the most singularly distrusted public institution in America. And indeed, as much as the left wants to turn Iraq into Vietnam, our troops tell an entirely different story. The military is the most trusted public institution in the country according to that Kennedy Center poll. In the battle of public information, people are going to be more likely to trust the people who have been to Iraq than the media. In fact, the polling has been quite consistent - a majority of Americans thinks that the media provides negative and unbalanced coverage of events in Iraq.

As bad as the Republicans have been this year, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. Their slow drift to a pro-surrender position has further cemented their well-earned reputation as the party of weakness on national security. Their constant stream of pessimism doesn’t provide them with much traction. The American public is rightfully fed up with the state of American politics and media - and they’ve every reason to do so.

The Democrats have never been able to develop a coherent Iraq strategy. All they have been able to do is harp and criticize. That isn’t enough, and it never has been. Especially when members of the military are completely and utterly contradicting the left, the attempt to spin Iraq into a defeat is simply not working. The American people see these attacks for what they are - manifestations of shameless partisanship and nothing more. The Democrats’ attacks are foolish in the extreme. It’s one thing to offer constructive criticism - but the Democrats haven’t done that - they’ve embraced the radical left wing of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. When the “stars” of your party are calling the murderers of children “Minutemen” and saying that American soldiers are no better than Ba’athist thugs, it’s hard to take the patriotic high ground.

The fact is that the withdrawal position argues that America is too weak to fight a protracted war, we should surrender to a group of al-Qaeda backed thugs who indiscriminately murder children, and that we should leave Iraq a broken and shattered society. Those are the consequences of a pullout before the job is done. The Democrats cannot back away from them, try as they might. Does anyone really believe that Iraq won’t descend into anarchy unless we leave them with the training they need to fight back? Does anyone really believe that a devastated Iraq won’t turn into the perfect breeding ground for terrorism? What would such an action say about our commitment to democracy? Hell, what would that say about our commitment to basic human rights? What lesson would our enemies take from the knowledge that we don’t have the will to take the fight to them for long?

The Democratic position on the war is short-sighted, self-serving, and harms the morale of our men and women overseas. There is no sugar-coating those facts - and the American public sees it the same way. The Democrats are not even trying to grapple with the consequences of surrender in Iraq, they just want to continually attack the Bush Administration. Their message isn’t taking. For all the doubts the American people have about Iraq, they’re not idiots. They know what the score is, and they know that after 9/11 we all stood together and proclaimed that our colors don’t run.

The Democrats are asking us to cut and run.

That isn’t what Americans do.

I’m off to gorge myself on decapitated land fowl, then spend the weekend in Bacchanalian excess that would make one of Caligula’s parties look like a Catholic girls bording house - so a happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, and I’ll be back with more on Monday.

Ariel Sharon has always been an unlikely peacemaker, but his latest daring move - leaving the party he helped found to pursue peace is a move that shows just how committed Sharon truly is to the peace process.

Sharon’s incredibly bold move was prompted by the realization that Sharon could not govern within the structure of Likud. His former Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu has been sniping at him over the Gaza withdrawal plan, and other members of Likud were also drawing their knives to take him down.

At the same time, Sharon’s split is also a politically wise decision. As economist Anthony Downs notes, the distribution of the electorate in a democracy tends to follow a bell curve - the party that can best capture the center has the best chance of winning the elections. Israeli politics has largely been a content between Labour and Likud since Likud’s founding in 1973, with smaller third parties like the secular Shinui having a chance to make or break coalitions in the Knesset. Sharon’s new National Responsibility party is trying to stake out the middle ground in Israeli politics. With Likud being left to hardliners like Binyamin Netanyahu, and Labour embracing the self-described socialist Amir Peretz, Sharon’s new party has an opportunity to claim the political center as Shinui did a few years ago when they came within a few seats of Labour in the Knesset.

The problem with founding a new political party in Israel - or anywhere else - is getting the infrastructure of a party going. Fundraising and voter recognition don’t come overnight. Sharon has four months until the elections in which to start essentially from scratch. While Sharon has the advantage of being a sitting Prime Minister, he still faces a significant uphill battle in order to keep his new party from being subjected to the whims of Labour or Likud.

In order to be successful, Sharon has to be able to govern, and when Sharon faces fire from both the left and the right, the stability of a future National Responsibility coalition is completely up in the air. Netanyahu would be unlikely to want to cooperate with his new political enemy, and Peretz would likely demand an end to economic reforms critical towards keeping the battered Israeli economy afloat. One of Sharon’s goals is to reduce the influence of smaller parties on Israeli coalition governments - however, his split from Likud could just as well further Balkanize Israeli politics.

The Palestinian issue continues to hang over Israeli politics. There cannot be any kind of viable negotiated settlement until Palestinian terrorism subsides. When groups like Hamas can continue to call for the destruction of Israel, there simply isn’t a climate for peace in the region. Even Fatah has the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, a terrorist group connected to the ruling party of Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Sharon’s plan may be the most pragmatic at the time, but if he can’t deliver something approaching a reasonable level of peace, the chances of his party surviving seem slim.

The biggest problem with third parties is that they’re almost always driven by individuals, not ideologies. When Arik Sharon retires from political life in Israel, who will take over the National Responsibility party? The only thing making Sharon’s gambit viable is his own political power and relatively strong poll numbers in Israel - absent that it seems likely that members of National Responsibility would fade back into Labour and Likud or even another third party like Shinui.

All in all, Sharon’s move is likely to work, at least in the short term. The Israeli people trust Sharon, he’s effectively remade himself as a peacemaker in the style of the late and beloved Yitzak Rabin. Sharon’s move will shake up Israeli politics for the short term, but it seems unlikely that it will have a truly lasting effect. What is clear is that Sharon is perfectly willing to take great political risk to safeguard not only his own political career, but what he sees as best for the state of Israel. As the old saying goes, fortune favors the bold, and in terms of Israeli politics, there’s no one bolder than Ariel Sharon.