Asking The Right Questions
I don't think I've ever completely agreed with anything David Ignatius of the Washington Post has written (that I have read at least). Today is no exception. But today, he has written a column that I thinks reaches the right conclusions even if I disagree with some of the things he says along the way. He points out the glaring omission in all the Democratic party attacks on Bush and Iraq. He is brutal in his assessment.
No matter how you slice it, the National Intelligence Estimate warning that the Iraq war has spawned more terrorism is big trouble for President Bush and his party in this election year. It goes to the heart of Bush's argument for invading Iraq, which was that it would make America safer.
Many Democrats act as if that's the end of the discussion: A mismanaged occupation has created a breeding ground for terrorists, so we should withdraw and let the Iraqis sort out the mess. Some extreme war critics are so angry at Bush they seem almost eager for America to lose, to prove a political point. Even among mainstream Democrats, the focus is "gotcha!" rather than "what next?" That is understandable, given the partisanship of Republican attacks, but it isn't right.
….
An example of the Democrats' fudge on Iraq was highlighted yesterday by Post columnist Dana Milbank in his description of retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste's appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Senators cheered Batiste's evisceration of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but tuned out Batiste's call for more troops and more patience in Iraq, and his admonition: "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge."
Here's a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies. Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it "strategic redeployment" or something else.
I wish Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) were asking this question: How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? Many critics of the war would argue that the worst has already happened — Iraq has unraveled. Unfortunately, as bad as things are, they could get considerably worse. Following a rapid American pullout, Iraq could descend into a full-blown civil war, with Sunni-Shiite violence spreading throughout the region. In this chaos, oil supplies could be threatened, sending prices well above $100 a barrel. Turkey, Iran and Jordan would intervene to protect their interests. James Fallows titled his collection of prescient essays warning about the Iraq war "Blind Into Baghdad." We shouldn't compound the error by being "blind out of Baghdad," too.
Ignatius is simply coming from the assumption that the war in Iraq was a mistake from the get-go. I disagree with that, but the rest of what he is writing here is important. Cut and run is the absolute wrong answer. Precipitous withdrawal damages the United States immeasurably. The threat of cutting off funds for the war if the Democrats take power is one of the most stupidly short-sighted policies the Democrats could have. Yet that is exactly what some of them are advocating openly.
By v, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 6:16 am
Yes, any time you can find a few grafs trashing the Dems, you’ll agree with the author.
What credibility.
By Donna, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 6:55 am
A good read. Now is the time to recognize the failed policies of the present leadership and do what we can to clean up the mess caused by spin, especially the curious rant that only one party can keep us safe. It takes ALL of us to work on these issues. We have a tough road ahead which is only made tougher by partisan stupidity that wants to disregard half the brainpower and will power of America.