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 wholeheartedly agree that we cannot afford to lose this war…just don’t know how to convince the whiners who want instant gratification that they need to be patient. It is pathetic how quickly partisan politics managed to reassert itself and derail the war on terror.
Iraq is not the war on terror.
But, hey. Great that they finally have a plan. You know when they should have come up with this in the first place? Before the fucking invasion. Just a thought.
What exactly is “the plan”? As far I can tell, the long-awaited blueprint for success that the Bush administration let us on the edge of our seat for amounts to….”we will stay the course until the mission is completed.” Wow….breaking news! Okay, so MAYBE we’ll withdraw 20% of the troops in the coming months IF exactly the right conditions unfold after next month’s election. Okay, that’s a start….but the plan seems to begin and end there. A 20% solution is not a solution….and until we recognize that a timeline for withdrawal is vital to motivating the Iraqi Security Forces, the other more elusive 80% of the solution will forever be just around the corner.
Someone should tell al-Qaeda that, as they certainly seem to think it is.
That’s not the answer at all. A timeline will tell the terrorists exactly how long they have to wait, regroup, and rearm before they can unleash an orgy of violence and terrorism. The Iraqi Security Forces are growing steadily more capable over time. The argument that they’re not doing well as an argument that manages to combine ignorance and subtle racism all into one package while at the same time being utterly false.
There are over 200,000 Iraqi military and police officers now, double what there were a year ago. 40 battalions of Iraq troops can fight with only allied air and artillery coverage, and several more are fully independent. Another 80 are combat capable in conjuction with US units.
What Bush announced today is just a formal statement of the process that’s been going on for well over a year. It’s just that the media can’t be bothered to get the basics down, so the Administration is force to spell it out at the Cliff’s Notes level.
“The argument that they’re not doing well (i)s an argument that manages to combine ignorance and subtle racism all into one package while at the same time being utterly false.”
Racism? Do you mean racism as in ‘we’ll install our type of government because you people are not capable of figuring out these things for yourselves’? Is that the type of racism you’re talking about?
“…before they can unleash an orgy of violence and terrorism.” What, unlike what’s happening now? Our own military is telling us a major factor driving Iraqi terrorism is our presence there. If this is correct, and the smart money says it is, then how do you know things will get worse if we leave? Maybe because the administration has such a proven track record of predicting events in Iraq we should take their word for it (“cakewalk”, “Mission Accomplished”, etc.)
We ditched Lebanon pretty fast 20+ years ago after the bombings that killed our troops; did you see an orgy of violence and terrorism there after we left? Quite the opposite. Iraq would be better off replacing our military with soldiers from the Arab League, or at least some more neutral Muslim nation such as Indonesia. It shouldn’t take too many Muslim troops based on your rosy assessment of how well equipped and trained Iraqi forces are–after only 3 years. Then again, it doesn’t matter what the Iraqis want, such as a timeline for departure, does it? It’s our call. Racism….again?!
“It is pathetic how quickly partisan politics managed to reassert itself and derail the war on terror.” Partisan? You think its politics that drives patriotic Americans, such as Rep. Murtha, to advocate pulling out rather than the fact the war is costing hundreds of billions of dollars that is barkrupting our country (beyond Rove’s domestic policies), the administration lied about the necessity for war, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or injured and our presence in an Arabic and Muslim country is creating an Al Quaeda recruiting drive Osama (did you forget about him?) couldn’t have even dreamed of? But Belladonna, according to you these probably aren’t valid reasons for pulling out, so we should just keep digging the hole deeper because, well, just because we need to finish what we started.
We created a new front for the war on terror by invading a Muslim country, and now we need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire by getting out.
No, the racism that assumes that once freed of a tyrannical dictator that Iraqis are somehow pathologically incapable of self-government and pluralism.
Except that isn’t true. If we were the reason that there was terrorism in Iraq, then we’d be the primary targets of it. But that is not the case. The Iraqis are on the receiving end of most of the attacks now – precisely because if Iraq fails, that gives a group like al-Qaeda the perfect safe haven in the middle of the Arab world. They also know that if Iraq becomes stable and democratic, it will inevitably lead to further change in the MIddle East, further eroding the very set of conditions which give them their power.
Yes, we did. Between 1985-1989 the situation in Lebanon became absolutely catastrophic. The Lebanese Civil War didn’t end until 1991.
Yes, I do. I think Murtha’s plan is stupid, unworkable, and wrong. Murtha’s personal patriotism is irrelevant to the discussion.
Pelosi’s support for withdrawal is another example of pure political opportunism, and nothing more.
Which again, is an argument that is exceptionally stupid. Leaving Iraq to al-Qaeda would be the most singularly idiotic foreign policy choice this nation could make. It is an unacceptable option, and even moderate Democrats like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Mark Warner have said that they support only drawing down our forces as Iraqi forces can adequately replace them.
Yeah, I guess I don’t see the harm in telling the terrorists how long before Iraqis are capable of defeating them on their own. Maybe you can explain it to me? Or is it your position that terrorists have to be blowing up children and soldiers if we’re to have any hope of catching them?
You are wrong: the most singularly idiotic foreign policy choice this nation has ever made was to invade Iraq. There is no question. There was no terrorist activity or al Qaeda presence before we invaded, but now it is the epicenter of worldwide terrorist activity, making Israel seem like New Zealand.
Lieberman, Clinton and Warner are examples of political opportunists, trying to cover all their bases and not lose too many votes. Once the war completely goes to hell and we’re talking about leaving they’ll all jump on the antiwar bandwagon. When a guy like Murtha, a military supporter and hawk, says we need to get out, that is sincere. He’s not planning to run for president.
Do you seriously think al Qaeda would rather attack Iraqis than Americans if we were as exposed as they are instead of hiding inside Green Zone bunkers? Please. If American civilians were out on the streets standing line to get a job there wouldn’t be any Iraqis targeted. The Iraqis that are being killed are mostly the ones who work for the US, or are trying to. But now, in the post-Saddam chaos caused by the worst post-war planning in history, the tempest of ethnic rivalries has been unleashed and we’re starting to see Sunnis and Shiites killing each other.
I believe the Iraqis are capable of running their own country, even one drawn up arbitrarily on a map by their former colonial masters (talk about racism). But the question was why don’t we leave when they ask us to? Is it because we assume they’re not ready to stand on their own? Are they not capable? Are they “idiotic” for wanting us to leave? Assuming we know better, that’s racism.
Whether we stay or leave it’s all going to hell, thanks to us breaking apart a country that was no threat to us, but now is. Puppet governments don’t last and once we leave Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will still be there, with all their particular interests in Iraq. The Shiite dominated government is already cozying up to Iran. Was that part of the inspired post-war planning?
Here’s something to consider: Islam is not Christianity and Arabs are not Europeans. Perhaps what we want is not what they want, and self-determination should play a role in Iraq’s future. Ever consider that? People do not grow more complacent with time after being invaded. They grow more restless and resentful, and Iraq is no different. Polls taken in Iraq show a majority of Iraqis want us out right now, and killing foreigners is considered acceptable. So much for being greeted as liberators, another false hope by the administration, or lie, take your pick. I guess the people you seem so intent on helping don’t want your help, huh? Or maybe they just don’t know what’s good for them.
“Lieberman, Clinton and Warner are examples of political opportunists, trying to cover all their bases and not lose too many votes.”
Amen to that. Pretty much every possible Presidential candidate (except Feingold) is trying to split hairs with us over Iraq….ultimately setting themselves up for national TV audiences watching a convention floor full of Republicans with flip-flops once again in 2008. Hillary in particular is standing right in the heart of no (wo)man’s land right now regarding Iraq. With luck, her calculated “nuance” will flame out her 2008 bid before she’s able to lose in a landslide to virtually any Republican challenger that runs against her.
Another dumb lie. Iraq was a serial state sponsor of terrorism, shielding Abu Abbas, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, holding a terrorist conference in 1998 attended by none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri, paying off suicide bombers, and engaging in other forms of support for terrorism.
But again, the anti-war side just has to ignore the facts to cling to their ignorant worldview.
Good. Let the Democrats nominate a hard-core leftist. Let them also go down in flames.
Again, another argument with no proof that ignores the facts. Since when do children work for the US? Since when does an Iraqi hospital have anything to do with the “occupation”. Take a look at the news sometime, the terrorists are hitting whatever targets they can find, regardless of who they kill.
They haven’t asked. If the Iraqis want us out, they have an election in 15 days in which they can vote on a government that could just as well ask us to leave.
Of course, the Iraqis aren’t dumb enough to slit their own throats…
Except for the fact they aren’t. The Iraqi Shi’ites hate the Iranians. They don’t speak the same language. They’re not the same ethnicity. They fought against each other for nearly a decade of some of the bloodiest warfare in the world. The only people taking help from the Iranians are scum like al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army – and the last time they pulled anything Iraqi Shi’ites were shooting at them in the streets and running them out of Najaf.
And what do you call the fact that Iraq is about to have its third democratic election this year?
The Iraqis are smart enough to know that the terrorists blowing them up at random are the enemy, not the ones trying to rebuild their country and protect them.
How many Iraqis do you know? How many Iraqi news sources do you read? How many soldiers do you talk to.
One of the great advantages of the blogosphere is that people like you simply can’t make things up anymore – there are too many sources that bypass the ideological blinders of the mainstream media and offer the truth, unvarnished as they see it.
Hope all had a good holiday, great new look Jay thought I was on another site then I read Mark,Chet and Reality and realized its the same old same old, arguements that is. Burkean conservative, damn I wish I thought of that.
Mark, plz plz vote in the primary and give us Finegold !! Pleaaassssee. Hillary triangulating the war is a good thing ? Okay maybe good for domestic issues but a war. I don’t think that political calculation is necessary a good thing and open up a can of worms, add the 403-3 vote in the House , and the mother Scheehan denunciation tough for me to see an advantage to her position. And oh yeah that speech by her husband in Dubah..
“Here’s something to consider: Islam is not Christianity and Arabs are not Europeans. Perhaps what we want is not what they want, and self-determination should play a role in Iraq’s future.”
You of course know that we were in Germany and Japan after WW2 doing the exact same thing as we are doing now. Japan had McAurther and a military flavor and German had a coalition government to did the same exact thing we’re doing in Iraq. Except it took years in both, I think 7 for Germany and a little less for Japan, and I think we’re still in both. Again, look at the history books Reality, seems to be the way it works. And Japan wasn’t European either. But I like the race card, (colonial masters, I like it)when backed into a corner it must be race. How is it all you diverse libs always throw race in, do you all read the same chapters of ” people’s history “by Zinn or is it part of your genetics. 2 historic votes and a third on the way. 1st time in the history of that region. Wasn’t this the same arguement for all the areas that were liberated from tyrannts. With Germany and Japan it was that their societies were not able to self govern because they too were backward. Germany just coming out of Prussian militarism and Japan just out of Tojo militarism. Russians were too peaseant like and the others well you get the idea.
As far as the chanard that no connection, Jay got it covered but how about Abu Nadal, Achellie Loro fame, living in Iraq and captured by us after the war. Salma Pak, terrorist training grounds or was that just for stewardess traing. Contact between high Iraqi intellegence and Al-Qaeda (Dalfur report). etc. etc. etc. but such a blanket statement shows more ideology and not necessarily the facts on the ground. I’ll leave you with my favorite democrat (see they do exsist) ,Victor David Hanson, on National Review today
“Of course, the White House, as is true in all wars, has made mistakes, but only one critical lapse — and it is not the Herculean effort to establish a consensual government at the nexus of the Middle East in less than three years after removing Saddam Hussein. The administration’s lapse, rather, has come in its failure to present the entire war effort in its proper moral context.
We took no oil — the price in fact skyrocketed after we invaded Iraq. We did not do Israel’s bidding; in fact, it left Gaza after we went into Iraq and elections followed on the West Bank. We did not want perpetual hegemony — in fact, we got out of Saudi Arabia, used the minimum amount of troops possible, and will leave Iraq anytime its consensual government so decrees. And we did not expropriate Arab resources, but, in fact, poured billions of dollars into Iraq to jumpstart its new consensual government in the greatest foreign aid infusion of the age.
In short, every day the American people should have been reminded of, and congratulated on, their country’s singular idealism, its tireless effort to reject the cynical realism of the past, and its near lone effort to make terrible sacrifices to offer the dispossessed Shia and Kurds something better than the exploitation and near genocide of the past — and how all that alone will enhance the long-term security of the United States.
That goal was what the U.S. military ended up so brilliantly fighting for — and what the American public rarely heard. The moral onus should have always been on the critics of the war. They should have been forced to explain why it was wrong to remove a fascist mass murderer, why it was wrong to stay rather than letting the country sink into Lebanon-like chaos, and why it was wrong not to abandon brave women, Kurds, and Shia who only wished for the chance of freedom.
Alas, that message we rarely heard until only recently, and the result has energized amoral leftists, who now pose as moralists by either misrepresenting the cause of the war, undermining the effort of soldiers in the field, or patronizing Iraqis as not yet civilized enough for their own consensual government.
We can draw down our troops not because of political pressures but because of events on the ground. First, the Iraqi military is improving — not eroding or deserting. The canard of only “one battle-ready brigade†could just as well apply to any of the Coalition forces. After all, what brigade in the world is the equal of the U.S. military — or could go into the heart of Fallujah house-to-house? The French? The Russians? The Germans? In truth, the Iraqi military is proving good enough to hold ground and soon to take it alongside our own troops.
Despite past calls here to postpone elections, and threats of mass murder there for those who participated in them, they continue on schedule. And the third and last vote is the most important, since it will put a human face on the elected government — and the onus on it to officially sanction U.S. help and monetary aid or refuse it.”
VDH- NRO “A Moral War”
I have written and posted on many blogs a very comprehensive plan-called the seven point exit strategy.
I compiled this in September of 2004 based on extensive research into the dynamics of the Middle East and the situation on the ground in Iraq as well as the geopolitical ramifications of what an exit strategy could accomplish.
My posting is a reflection of my desire to begin a conversation and exchange of ideas that will eventually create the incentive for all of those interested in ending the war in Iraq, to come together and present an alternative to the Bush empire’s policies of militarism and domination.
if you would like to read my plan please go to the Nevada Thunder blog-and search out my seven point exit strategy or e-mail me directly.
All comments would be appreciated.
Peace,
Howard
Howard I think the exit stradegy is to leave after we win. No need to go anywhere else or read yet another lefty inspired web site. You know win the conflict then go home, its a simple one point plan, but the application and how its carried out is complex. Since as in every war there is a thinking dynamic enemy who may not have gotten the memo about the neat and tidy plan, whcih is okay since any war plan of ours usually gets published in the NYT or WaPo.
Just like we always do, ask for only enough ground to bury our dead and leave Iraq much much better than we found it. See Japan and Germany, et al. So much for that “pax Americana” arguement, hey dude where’s my empire ?