A False Solution to Iraq
An e-mail I received from Senator Ted Kennedy caught my eye today because unlike most Democratic mailings of late which have focused on domestic policies, this one was all about Iraq. Here’s the meat (red and all):
Kennedy was writing on behalf of The One America Committee not the Democratic Party, but I hardly think it’s a stretch to assume his words accurately represent the mainstream view within the party. And that’s a problem. Here’s two reasons why:
1) If believing we could create a vibrant, peaceful democracy in Iraq was a pie-in-the-sky idea, then believing that our withdrawal will solve most problems in Iraq is an even deeper vein of delusion. Our presence surely causes problems but our absence would clearly cause a great deal more problems. Plus, should we choose to leave, how long before we have to go back in? Or do Kennedy and others think that a highly unstable, terrorist-full nation sitting on a ridiculous amount of oil will never threaten our security again?
2) Regardless of how big a mistake going into Iraq was or how dishonest the selling of the war may have been, those are no longer the issues facing us. That’s not to say they are unimportant to the debate, just that they are unimportant to the solution. If a drunk driver smashes up your car, repeatedly pointing out that the driver was drunk is not going to fix your car.
In the end, the “let’s get out and to hell with Iraq” is not an honest solution. It’s pandering, both to America’s isolationist instincts and to a leftist base intent on ensuring the Iraq venture is a failure. Yes, there’s a lot of good reasons to believe going into Iraq was a colossal blunder, but there are very few reasons to actively seek our failure there.
Because, truth is, our failure is Iraq’s tragedy. There is no morally defensible argument for driving another nation into near chaos and then abandoning them before stability is restored. Whether or not we as individual Americans think going into Iraq was noble or foolish, we as a nation now have the collective moral duty to continue sacrificing our treasure and our blood for Iraq and its people.
Add to that the very significant possibility that abandoning Iraq would, in the long run, create greater security threats for our own people, and I don’t see how Kennedy and the majority of his party can see “get out” as the appropriate solution.
The question shouldn’t be stay or leave. The question should be, what’s the best way to achieve a stable, generally peaceful Iraq? Is it more troops? Is it prostrating ourselves in front of the international community, admitting our stupidity and then begging for help? Is it demanding more sacrifices on the home front? I don’t know. But any of those would be more acceptable to “get out now.”
Unfortunately, the Democrats seem intent on forcing the voters into choosing between their total retreat and Bush’s stubborn “stay the course, it’s going pretty well.” I really wish we had another choice.
The situation in Iraq demands an exit strategy, and it's essential for the President to explain to the nation what his exit strategy is.
No one should fall into the Republican trap of saying disengagement is defeat. The truth is the opposite: disengagement is part of the solution in Iraq. Our overwhelming military presence and our open-ended military commitment are part of the problem. They fuel the insurgency, offer a false crutch for the Iraqi government, undermine our respect in the world, and make the war on terrorism harder to win.
Yet President Bush is preparing to spend the month of August traveling throughout the United States, defending the war in cities and towns across the country. Despite what he'll say to handpicked GOP crowds at his "events," two simple facts remain: there were no WMD's in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein was not part of 9/11.
Enough is enough. The American people don't want our troops bogged down endlessly in Iraq, defending the same failed strategy. Help me send a clear message to President Bush: the Iraqi people have elected a democratic government, and it's time for American troops to begin to come home.
Kennedy was writing on behalf of The One America Committee not the Democratic Party, but I hardly think it’s a stretch to assume his words accurately represent the mainstream view within the party. And that’s a problem. Here’s two reasons why:
1) If believing we could create a vibrant, peaceful democracy in Iraq was a pie-in-the-sky idea, then believing that our withdrawal will solve most problems in Iraq is an even deeper vein of delusion. Our presence surely causes problems but our absence would clearly cause a great deal more problems. Plus, should we choose to leave, how long before we have to go back in? Or do Kennedy and others think that a highly unstable, terrorist-full nation sitting on a ridiculous amount of oil will never threaten our security again?
2) Regardless of how big a mistake going into Iraq was or how dishonest the selling of the war may have been, those are no longer the issues facing us. That’s not to say they are unimportant to the debate, just that they are unimportant to the solution. If a drunk driver smashes up your car, repeatedly pointing out that the driver was drunk is not going to fix your car.
In the end, the “let’s get out and to hell with Iraq” is not an honest solution. It’s pandering, both to America’s isolationist instincts and to a leftist base intent on ensuring the Iraq venture is a failure. Yes, there’s a lot of good reasons to believe going into Iraq was a colossal blunder, but there are very few reasons to actively seek our failure there.
Because, truth is, our failure is Iraq’s tragedy. There is no morally defensible argument for driving another nation into near chaos and then abandoning them before stability is restored. Whether or not we as individual Americans think going into Iraq was noble or foolish, we as a nation now have the collective moral duty to continue sacrificing our treasure and our blood for Iraq and its people.
Add to that the very significant possibility that abandoning Iraq would, in the long run, create greater security threats for our own people, and I don’t see how Kennedy and the majority of his party can see “get out” as the appropriate solution.
The question shouldn’t be stay or leave. The question should be, what’s the best way to achieve a stable, generally peaceful Iraq? Is it more troops? Is it prostrating ourselves in front of the international community, admitting our stupidity and then begging for help? Is it demanding more sacrifices on the home front? I don’t know. But any of those would be more acceptable to “get out now.”
Unfortunately, the Democrats seem intent on forcing the voters into choosing between their total retreat and Bush’s stubborn “stay the course, it’s going pretty well.” I really wish we had another choice.
posted by Alan Stewart Carl at 1:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home