| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Why We Can't Leave |
| 2007-02-06 |
| By Mortimer B. Zuckerman Our hyperactive president's walkabouts, radio talks, interviews, conferences on energy, the economy, and obesity-and his recent State of the Union address-find him looking well and speaking well, but rather in the manner of the Wizard of Oz. When the curtain is drawn back on the big flashing pronouncements, the Wizard is revealed not as a powerful magician but someone who can't even dispossess a wicked witch of her broomstick without the help of a young girl, her little dog, a scarecrow, a toothless lion, and a tin man. (Cast those characters yourself!) The only thing that is melting before the wizard's eyes is not the wicked witch but the wizard's own support in the country, in the Congress, and within his own party. George W. Bush bet his presidency on Iraq. And now he's betting his party's future on it. If the new troop "surge" fails, it will destroy the Republicans' reputation on national security for at least a generation. The president said, "Nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq." He's right. Abandoning Iraq would plunge the country we went to war to save into a grim horror movie. The Iraqi government cannot stop sectarian killing when it is able to call on the world's most powerful military. Who can expect it to do so if the Americans leave? Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi professionals-physicians, academics, and the like-have divined the answer and fled to other countries. Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased" withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits, and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy will undoubtedly follow America home. How the president must rue his idealized concept of the war, and his obstinacy in persisting with the "too little, too late" way it was conducted. The desire for democracy in Iraq is a noble one, but democracy is not achieved by a single election. It was exhilarating to see so many Iraqis proudly raising their inky voting fingers in the face of threats, but installing democracy is different from organizing an election. Democracy requires security. It requires civil institutions, of which Iraq had none, except for the mosque where Islamists organized to the detriment of dreams of a secular state. It requires respect for the rule of law, for which the Shiite and Sunni extremists have only contempt. It requires tolerance for minorities, but in Iraq today people are murdered daily because of their name or the street where they live. Indeed, those elections had counterintuitive consequences for they divided the country into three sectarian communities and hardened the differences among them. As for the "plan" the president proposed, it is, like "democracy," a mere bromide. Putting 21,500 more troops into Baghdad may well be repeating the error of undercommitment, which doomed Bush's Iraq venture in the first place. The plan, the president tells us, requires the elected Iraqi government to do things for which it has shown no enthusiasm and, indeed, about which it has been obstructionist. Bush may insist that the weaselly prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, listen. But Maliki has only one ear, it seems-for Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric and sworn foe of America. On CNN last week, Maliki again poured cold water on the Bush plan for Baghdad. This, of course, should have come as no surprise. Back in June, in Operation Together Forward, the president vowed that "a joint effort" would be made by 26,000 Iraqi soldiers, backed by 7,200 mostly U.S. forces, to secure Baghdad's violent streets. No more than 9,000 Iraqi soldiers showed up. Then there was Stage II of the operation. Of the six battalions supposed to join an additional 5,500 Americans, only two showed up. A half-year into this critical joint undertaking, the U.S. has committed 15,000 soldiers to the mission. Iraqi combat forces in Baghdad have never numbered more than 10,000. The continual failure of Maliki to deliver brings to mind the quote from Henry IV: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep," says Owen Glendower. To which Hotspur replies: "But will they come when you do call for them?" |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #4 "Call for them" - the USA + Allies are trying to empower Western-style democracy = democracy wid local characteristics in a nation and region that has had little to no experience or tradition of same. Patton + MacArthur were not afraid to use the bayonet to make it clear to the opposition whom controls whom - THE IMAGE OF A PATTON OR MACARTHUR "ASKING" MALIKI TO "PLEASE" ASK HIS TROOPS TO SHOW UP IS TOO FUNNY. SHOWS THE POST-CLINTON USDOD HAS LOST ITS ABILITY TO KNOW WHEN TO SELECTIVELY PROPERLY APPLY THE BAYONET = CALL IN THE TANKS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-06 20:17 |
| #3 "Democracy requires security" - D'oh! Iraqi Orcs have been running rampant for years now. The attention span of the American electorate has apparently been exhausted. God save the Iraqis, we won't. Hotspur should have replied, "But will those spirits from the vasty deep do your bidding, if indeed they show up in the first place?" |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-02-06 11:50 |
| #2 Klingons Vs Orcs, no question who wins that match, poor orcs don't have a chance. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-02-06 09:55 |
| #1 The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." General Hayden has it right. I hope all of his Klingon colleagues were listening. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-02-06 06:56 |