A Changing Battlefield (CM)

Bill Kristol, just back from Iraq, writes in TWS online about the dramatic changes taking place in Iraq — and in the American debate over Iraq. He says that July

began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts—Democrats, no less!—reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable. It began with a plan for a series of votes in Congress that were supposed to stampede nervous Republicans against the continued prosecution of the war. It ended with the GOP spine stiffened, no antiwar legislation passed, and the Democratic Congress adjourning in disarray, with approval ratings lower than President Bush's. …

Americans' support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. …

In the real world, the public is skeptical of the administration's stance on Iraq—but not overwhelmingly or irretrievably so. … 51 percent are now at least open to giving the policy more time. That's up from 43 percent a month ago. …

[P]rogress on the ground in Iraq is likely to continue. It can't be taken for granted, given the nature of a war against a ruthless and adaptable enemy. Still, one British general—no cheerleader for our conduct of the war in the past—told me in Baghdad last week, "It's getting better—and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to do so." …

This denial will likely get more and more difficult. After all, civilian deaths in Baghdad are decreasing, and al Qaeda's networks and safe havens are being systematically disrupted. In Anbar, and now in Diyala, a bottom-up reconciliation is moving ahead as tribal sheikhs have turned against al Qaeda and are siding with American troops and Iraqi Security Forces. …

What's more, the public debate will move from a referendum on Bush's conduct of the war over the past four years to a discussion of the choices ahead, as Gen. Petraeus's testimony in September draws near. The public will finally have to consider seriously the implications of giving up on Iraq, as opposed to supporting the continued prosecution of a war we might well win. …

Comments

[Henry Kicklighter]

On the surface, it seems encouraging that after another round of debate, even some Democrats concede that the Battle for Iraq in the widening Global War On Terror might be winnable. There's a huge problem with this line of reasoning, though. As Americans, we value our freedoms, especially Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, many Americans take this freedom for granted and use it in a way that endangers our nation; among the worst offenders are the politicians on Capitol Hill who, instead of being leaders, are more interested in political gain, all the while, giving joy to our enemies as they destroy our nation from within.

Debate? The time for debate ended long ago, before our necessary incursion into Iraq. In November of 2001, long before the debate began, 71% of Americans were in favor of invading Iraq... again, that's November of 2001, long before the Bush Administration began testing Saddam Hussein's resolve to follow through with his commitments to the United Nations to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency unfettered access to known nuclear facilities within Iraq. Though the poll doesn't clearly indicate it, one could reasonably conclude that most Americans felt that Hussein was a threat.

In order to illustrate the threat, a simple analogy is useful. Someone wishing to impose their will over another... a bank robber, a rapist, a street-thug threatens innocent people as he holds his hand in the pocket of his jacket and points through the jacket at his intended victims. The police arrive and the person continues the ploy. What happens? The police are forced to eliminate the threat. Did the police choose to eliminate the threat? No, the police had no option; in order to protect the potential victim's life, the police did what was necessary to preserve life, peace, and freedom in a civilized society. This is the way of the world, a world in which some choose to impose their will through the use of force.

Saddam Hussein was such a person and, as such, he had to be eliminated and, not only that, but the world needed the assurance that the means by which Hussein threatened the world were eliminated. This was no "war of choice" as the "peace at all costs" crowd would have you believe. This front in the war on terror was made necessary by a madman who, along with his sons, murdered at will within his borders and, when told to cease the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, this same man and his representatives gave every indication that they would continue to seek our destruction.

We're now embroiled in a battle against terrorists within Iraq. Please don't mistake the enemy in Iraq as an "insurgent" threat. The insurgent threat was almost completely destroyed as the Saddam Fedayeen began to fall apart during the Summer of 2003. The term "insurgent" would imply that groups of Iraqis are organizing the terror being committed against the Iraqi populace. There's no insurgency within Iraq. Though some of those fighting coalition forces are Iraqi, it is often found that they are just trying to earn a living or, worse, they've been pressed into "jihad" under threats of death. Again, there is no such thing as an Iraqi insurgency.

The United States is fighting a war, not against Iraq, but a war against Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, and too many others to mention. The enemy dead found in Iraq are often from these and other countries and, although the majority of enemy dead are Iraqi, the organization, the money, and the weapons are coming from other nations.

If the politicians on Capitol Hill would miraculously transform into Leaders, then a subject worthy of debate resolve the question, "Exactly how involved are the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al., and how does the Bush Doctrine apply?" We need Leaders, not politicians to debate the best course of action regarding the war being waged against the United States. We need Leaders who have taken the time to study the threat, who will take the necessary action to eliminate the threat to our country. This is the debate that must take place in Washington.

Meanwhile, there is nothing to do in Iraq but to prevail. The battle for Iraq isn't some academic environment that allows debate; rather, the battle for Iraq is a struggle for survival in one of the many fronts in this Global War On Terror.

Really now, put yourself in the boots of a soldier on the ground, a soldier that understands the true nature of this struggle, and then ask yourself if this is a time for debate. Seems absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

[Yankee Doodle]

Interesting post, Cliff, and very interesting comment, Henry.

I still think diverting troops destined for Afghanistan to the Iraq theater in 2002 was a mistake. Because of a lack of troops and resources in Afghanistan in 2002, bin Laden got away. We should have done everything we could to neutralize Al Qaeda and the Taliban before getting embroiled in Iraq.

The big difference was this: Hussein's Iraq was a potential threat to us; Al Qaeda was a demonstrated threat. Hussein had a country, power, and thus something to lose -- factors arguing in favor of provocations for showmanship, things that would stop far short of 9/11. Bin Laden had no such things at risk, thus far less to lose. And, we had credible reports that bin Laden had nukes -- reports far more credible than the ones about Iraq.

All things considered, it was a big mistake to let bin Laden get away.