It’s getting harder to distinguish between newsies such as Tim
Russert and would-be presidents such as Newt Gingrich. Both have
made it unmistakably clear that their number one goal is to label
America’s invasion of Iraq a failure. It’s no surprise to hear Tim
Russert press National Security Adviser Steve Hadley and Senate
Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, as he did yesterday, to say that the president should admit the
Iraq invasion was a mistake. The media believes it won the election
for the Democrats and expects to be repaid by a repudiation of the
war by the new Congress. But what is Newt’s excuse? Why has James
Baker’s about-to-report “study group” reached consensus on a phased
withdrawal from Iraq and negotiations with Iran and Syria without
apparently even considering how to win the war?
In a New Hampshire speech last week, trolling for support in the
2008 presidential primary, Gingrich said that the only way the
president can lead this nation forward is to begin by admitting
failure in Iraq. According to a Boston Globe report,
Gingrich said we’ve gone beyond the first two stages in Iraq: the
removal of Saddam and the democracy-building stage. And, he asked,
“If the military, White House, and State Department continue to
avoid the word ‘failure,’ how can you bring about a third stage?”
Does he agree with the Baker-Hamilton group (and Joe Biden and
Jimmy Carter) that Iran and Syria can have a beneficial influence
on the future of Iraq?
Newt Gingrich wants to be president of the United States. A
wartime president — which, like it or not, is what President
Bush’s successor will be — has to lead not only the nation but the
world. The threat of Islamic fascism isn’t going to be defeated
before January 2009. So why is Gingrich proving that he can never
be a wartime president by saying that the only path forward for the
Bush administration is to admit failure in Iraq? Is Gingrich
ignorant of the effect that admission would have on the global war,
or is he so crass a politician that he cares about nothing other
than the perceived political advantage he can gain by saying we’ve
been defeated in Iraq?
This week, the media’s payoff on Iraq will begin in the Senate
Armed Services Committee confirmation hearings on Robert Gates to
succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Gates resigned
from the Baker-Hamilton group soon after his nomination to the top
defense job, but his participation in that group — and his
long-time connection to the Bush 41 crowd of which Baker was the
self-proclaimed star — mean his hearings will be focused on how he
will guide the president into the graceful exit from Iraq the
president has said wouldn’t happen. It’s a faint hope, but if there
is a Republican left on the committee, he might use his time to
greater benefit by asking Gates about the Rumsfeld memo on the way
ahead.
The latest secret document published by the New York
Times is a memo written by Secretary Rumsfeld and sent to the
president the day before the November election. Apparently written
before his decision to resign, Rumsfeld demonstrated — redundantly
— that he understands this war and how it must be fought to win
it, not lose it. On the list of Republicans eager for defeat you
won’t find Rumsfeld’s name.
More than the rest of us, Rumsfeld has reason for impatience
with the Iraqis, especially the politicians who are unwilling or
unable to reach consensus on the means to unify their government
and secure their nation against Iranian and Syrian aggression. He
made several points. Among them:
* Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by
the Iraqi Government and the US — political, economic and security
goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and the
Iraqi people….
* Retain high-end SOF (special operations forces) capability and
support structure to target al-Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in
Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those
necessary to provide certain key enablers for the [Iraqi Security
Forces]….
* Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian
borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian
influence on the Iraqi Government….
* [End] reconstruction assistance in areas where there is
violence….
* Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the
U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to
readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore
not “lose.”
“Not ‘lose’” is the key term, and only the president and Secretary
Rumsfeld seem to understand the need to win. There is a faint hope
that at least a few members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
understand that we have to win, not just in Iraq but in the wider
global war against Islamofascism.
Those few are Sens. Pat Roberts of Kansas, John Cornyn of Texas,
Jeff Sessions of Alabama, John Ensign of Nevada and John Thune of
South Dakota. Both Sen. McCain, who is running for president, and
Sen. Graham who is running to please John McCain, will predictably
spend their time questioning Gates about the Fabulous Baker Boys’
report, and how to best engineer a regional peace conference by
which we can sell the future of Iraq to Iran and Syria as the price
for a peaceful withdrawal from Iraq. But perhaps Pat Roberts or
Jeff Sessions or John Cornyn will ask what needs to be asked. Such
as:
* Mr. Gates, how would you advise the president to win the wider
war?
* Do you disagree with any of the points in Secretary Rumsfeld’s
memo, and if so why?
* Do you believe that Iran or Syria would possibly act to
benefit a democratic Iraq? What price would you pay —
diplomatically or otherwise — for their beneficial action?
* Do you agree with Newt Gingrich that the best way for the
president to lead the nation and the world is to admit we have
failed in Iraq?
* How will you ensure that, when the president’s term ends, we
will be on the path to victory and not defeat?
Robert Gates is, by all reports, the right man to succeed
Rumsfeld and probably deserves the benefit of our support. But he
needs to be tested first, and in his answers to those questions we
can best judge if he can remake George W. Bush into the war
president he must be for the next two years.
TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author
of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are
Worse Than You Think (Regnery, 2004) and, with Edward
Timperlake, Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United
States (Regnery, 2006).
