Iraq

Dear Friends,

I received this email from a friend of mine this morning:

Here is an article charting the erosion of one of the last viable justifications for the ongoing war in Iraq: isolation of Islamic terrorism to a specific region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28exodus.html?pagewanted=1&hp

I'm sure you remember that Al' Qiada itself was initially composed of veterans of the Russian-Afghanee war. I fear that a similar thing is happening here. We may see an increase in terrorism for another generation.

Here was my response:

Great article. This is exactly what I was talking about the other day. A military withdrawal from the Middle East is the last thing we should be discussing. The war on terror is a real thing and something that we are going to have to continue contemplating for the next dozen years or more. 9/11 showed us the error of pacifism and complacency. More than any other war in which we've been involved, this is a war that will require the support of every one of us if it is going to be successful. My biggest criticism of the Democrats in this is how they have made this war into a partisan issue. Granted, Bush should have capitulated to them in some areas (Rumsfield should have been removed long before he was), but ultimately, they used this war for political leverage rather than simply trying to work towards a solution. The question should not be whether or not we ought to be involved, but rather, how can we most effectively fight the terrorists while protecting the people of the Middle East.

I started to look for some evidence to back up my claims. I found a pretty good excerpt from the
Peter Berkowitz article at opinionjournal.com:

Consider Iraq. The split among conservatives has widened since Saddam was toppled in the spring of 2003. Traditional realists continue to put their trust in containment, and reject nation-building on the grounds that we lack both a moral obligation and the requisite knowledge of Arabic, Iraqi culture and politics, and Islam. Supporters of the war still argue that, in an age of mega-terror, planting the seeds of liberty and democracy in the Muslim Middle East is a reasonable response to the poverty, illiteracy, authoritarianism, violence and religious fanaticism that plagues the region.

In contrast, Democrats today are nearly united in the belief that the invasion has been a fiasco and that we must withdraw promptly. Indeed, rare is the Democrat (Sen. Joe Lieberman was compelled to run as an Independent) who does not sound like a traditional realist denying both America's moral obligation to remain in Iraq and its capacity to bring order to the country.

The point here is that by limiting the ability of its members to one option, The Democratic Party is limiting the entire debate. Within the Republican Party, there is a great amount of debate (explore stkarnick.com for examples), covering every aspect of the issue. Bush is not without blame in this. His inability to see things in terms other than black and white often cripples his ability to communicate diplomatically. When this war started, the consensus was that we needed to get involved militarily in Iraq. Bush insisted on defining that involvement on his terms, which was a mistake, but what the opposition did was take the easy way out and rather than try to promote their own plan for the war, decided to endorse retreat. This short-sighted tactic will drastically limit the Democrats as they seek the White House in the fall. I envision three scenarios:

1. The Democratic candidate will not be elected. War Continues.

2. The Democratic candidate will be elected. Sticking to the party line, the new President will withdraw the troops creating a vacuum in the Middle East in which genocide and tyranny flourish and the President will lose the swing voters and be ousted after one term.

3. The Democratic candidate will be elected. Realizing the withdrawal is impossible, the war on terror will carry on and the President will lose his or her base and be ousted after one term.

Proper withdrawal from this war will take years, probably decades. However the invasion was justified is irrelevant. The feel like they were snookered into signing off on the war, and perhaps they were. For the sake of the party, and for the country, they must accept that withdrawal is not an option and work on a plan for making the most out of our situation.

I (and probably everyone in the country) have a great deal left to contemplate. My understanding of the intricacies of this situtation is constantly changing. I appreciate any comments or insights any of my readers can offer.

-LCC