President Bush may have unveiled a new strategy for the Iraq
War, but pro-war critics of his administration are mired in the
same quagmire they’ve found themselves in throughout his
presidency.
Those who believe that the battle against Islamic fundamentalism
is the most important calling of our time must once again choose
between a president who agrees but won’t dedicate adequate
resources to the daunting task of defeating this pernicious enemy,
and an opposition party that does not take the threat
seriously.
The gap between the grand ends President Bush has aimed for and
the paltry means he has allocated for achieving them, in hindsight,
was apparent since the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade
Center themselves. On Sept. 20, 2001 President Bush spoke resolutely to a joint session of Congress
and reversed a decades-old policy of passivity in the face of a
growing terrorist threat and promised to “direct every resource at
our command…to the disruption and to the defeat of the global
terror network.”
Rather than outline what type of sacrifice would be required of
Americans to achieve this goal, President Bush asked for “patience,
with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter
security” and “continued participation and confidence in the
American economy.” With his approval ratings sky high and Americans
eager for action in the wake of Sept. 11, had he also called on
able-bodied young Americans to enlist in the military so that the
armed forces would have enough personnel to conduct the ambitious
long-term campaign against terrorism that he envisioned, military
recruiters would have been swamped with volunteers.
Now, more than five years later, President Bush finds himself
leading a difficult war in the central front of what he rightly
considers the “decisive ideological struggle of our time,” and yet
he is forced to scramble to gather 21,500 troops in a last gasp
effort to get the job done.
In his speech on Wednesday, President Bush said much to please
supporters of an aggressive war effort. Despite anemic approval
ratings, sagging public support for the war, a hostile opposition
party in control of Congress, and constant ridicule by a media
convinced he’s living in denial, President Bush stood firm and
reiterated the importance of achieving victory in Iraq. He ignored
calls to engage in empty diplomacy with Iran and Syria, vowing to
“interrupt the flow of support” from those nations. And he finally
embraced calls to add troops and to give them a freer hand to
pursue insurgent groups and militias.
But the devil, as they say, is in the details. In the lead up to
President Bush’s speech Frederick Kagan and Jack Keane, among the
most prominent advocates of a surge, wrote that “Bringing security to Baghdad…is
possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting
18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.” Where does it
leave Kagan and Keane now that the President has called for adding
just over 20,000?
Furthermore, the plan is heavily dependent on the earnestness of
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a man who all evidence
suggests is either unable to crack down on Shite militias, or
actively in league with them. If President Bush is going to make
the case that what happens in Iraq has direct implications on our
own security, then it’s perplexing that he would make success there
contingent on Maliki’s good intentions.
While there is much reason to view the President’s plan with
skepticism (and sadly the pessimists have tended to be right about
Iraq), the unfortunate reality is that the Democrats have not
presented a plan to deal with the consequences of defeat in Iraq.
As Sen. John McCain put it, “I believe those who are calling for
withdrawal have the obligation to tell us what we do in the region
when it descends into chaos…” Instead, Senate Majority Whip Dick
Durbin, in the Democrats’ response to President Bush’s speech,
called for “the orderly redeployment of troops”
without offering any constructive proposal for what America should
do in the event that our troops leave, an all-out civil war erupts,
a regional proxy war ensues, and terrorists begin using the western
region of Iraq to build bases and plot attacks against the United
States. Critics of the war may argue that this is precisely why the
war was a mistake in the first place, but that doesn’t eliminate
the need for the opposition party that is now in control of
Congress to act responsibly and attempt to present a better
alternative.
For years, pro-war critics of the Bush administration have
argued for more troops and a “green light” for the U.S. military to
engage insurgents. They were stubbornly ignored, but still largely
supported the President given the alternative. Now, once again,
those who view the struggle against terrorism and Islamist
fundamentalism as the calling of our time are presented with a
choice between a flawed proposal for victory by President Bush that
may be years too late, or a policy of accepting defeat and
withdrawing erratically.
With a healthy dose of skepticism, let’s hope and pray that
President Bush’s policy proves effective.
