The Iraqi Ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaida’ie has an important editorial in today’s Washington Post on why it is critical that we not abandon Iraq at this critical juncture:
Our enemies’ strategy has never changed: creating mayhem and making Iraq ungovernable, thereby driving the Americans and their allies out, and installing a Saddam Hussein look-alike to “make peace.” In pursuing this strategy, they have forged many alliances and changed course and tactics many times.
Just as they kept to their strategy and adapted, we should do the same. In this context, “staying the course” should mean being ready to adapt and learn while also standing firm for democracy and for a new vision for the country and the region. If we abandon our effort, our enemies win by default.
That’s just the issue. The consequences of a premature departure of American forces from Iraq would be nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. Isolationists on both the left and right wings cannot ignore the fact that the Middle East is a strategic region in world affairs — as nice as it would be to no longer be dependent on Middle Eastern oil, we are, and an instability in that region that threatens regional warfare would be devastating not only to the United States, but to everyone else as well. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen.
The arguments of the left keep coming around to defeatism. It’s one thing to suggest that the current course of events has proven our plans to be ill-conceived. It’s entirely another to suggest that Iraq is unwinnable. It isn’t, and to say such a thing only demonstrates to other troublemakers that the military force of the United States can be defeated in short order by small groups of terrorists. Such a lesson will not go unnoticed in Tehran, Damascus, Pyongyang, and other places where those who intend us harm lurk. We’re already dangerously close to setting that precedent already.
The fact remains that this is, and always has been, predominantly a war of wills. Over a three-year long conflict we’ve lost fewer than 3,000 soldiers in two theaters of operations. One should never belittle the enormous loss that each one of those casualties represents, but in military terms never in the course of human history has so much been done with so few losses. A significant number of our own soldiers who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been equipped with prosthetics and gone back into battle. Their determination and sense of purpose is strong. If we want to win this war, our determination must be as great as theirs.
The people of Iraq also know the stakes. As the Ambassador writes:
Is all this achievable? We know it is. Iraqis are resilient. They thirst for normality and a chance to build a future in freedom and dignity. They are fighting and dying for it every day — witness the numbers enlisting in the security forces despite horrific losses. Witness the support Iraqi women are providing for the political process, and the potential of their emancipation.
The Iraqis are on the front line of this conflict. Their home is the war zone. We have an obligation to assist them as much as we can for as long as we can. That doesn’t mean that Iraqi will become a permanent American protectorate, but it does mean that once we toppled the Hussein regime we should have walked away and washed our hands of the whole affair. Such an act would be deeply irresponsible. Whether or not it was right to remove the Hussein regime in 2003 is now an academic question. It cannot be undone. What we need now is a strategy for achieving victory, not how we can best tuck our tail between our legs.
Achieving victory in Iraq has been hard, and we have made progress, but as long as our enemy thinks that their will is greater than ours, we’re only sowing the seeds of our own defeat. Those who have chosen to use this war for their partisan political purposes are, intentionally or not, emboldening our enemies and proving bin Laden’s observation that America was but a paper tiger to have been true.
Leaving Iraq may save American lives in the short term, to be sure. But in the next war we will pay for our mistake many times over. Allowing Iraq to fall into anarchy is not in our interests, it isn’t in the Iraqi people’s interest, and it isn’t in the interest of world peace.
If we believe in values like democracy, freedom of conscience, and human rights, we are obligated to defend them in Iraq. If we fail to do this, ultimately we will prove ourselves unworthy of them.
For about the 4,302,881st time, I’m not sure where you are getting this phantom argument from Democrats. The Democrats are the only ones admitting mistakes have been made and a new direction is needed–one that involves a clear strategy for winning and then leaving when our goals are accomplished. Well, there are some Republicans who are in tight reelection battles that are doing the same, but that’s a different story.
Except for the part where that isn’t true. The Democratic Party line is now to withdraw on a set timetable, regardless of what objectives have been achieved.
The last Democrat to campaign on your concept of winning the war lost his primary bid in large part because of his stance on Iraq.
Actually, Lieberman campaigned with Bush, who has yet to set a clear strategy for winning and then leaving when goals are accomplished.
Again, with the phantom Democratic Party line. I’m not sure where you’re getting this. Because in many of your posts, you talk about how the Democrats have no plan in Iraq. So which is it, is there a party line or not? Spare me the spin and just let me know which one it is.
How about from the Democrats themselves — unless John Murtha, John Kerry, Ned Lamont, et al have suddenly stopped being Democrats, their position has become the mainstream position of the Democratic Party.
The party line is to withdraw on an arbitrary timetable, which is act of surrender, not a plan.
You heard it from Jay Reding first, folks: The Democrats have the same position on the Iraq war as the top U.S. Commander in Iraq.
And the same position as the Administration. When the Administration isn’t trying to use the issue as a political football, that is.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
But “stay the course” is a plan?
Not much of one, but it’s better than retreat.
Besides, the new catchphrase is “adapt to win” which is a nice one, except for the part where it doesn’t really mean anything. Then again “improve the quality of the Iraqi security forces while working to disarm Shi’ite militias and remove Iranian influences from Iraqi governance” is a hell of a lot less pithy.
No, they don’t. Again, from the article you linked to:
That was in April. Obviously the political and security progress in Iraq has not been good, which makes significant reductions unlikely until they improve.
The Democratic plan is for a phased withdrawal based on an arbitrary timeline unrelated to security or political progress. A troop drawdown based on success is much different from one that assumes failure.
Did you read the article you linked to? For one the date is last year. Here’s their prediction:
It’s past mid-2006 and no such reductions happened.
I suggest working on your reading comprehension skills before sitting at the big kid’s table.