Abandonment with Honor
Sen. Chuck Hagel, C&R-Neb., offers up a novel idea: abandonment with honor. Well, it’s an old idea, but it’s shiny and new again. This particular item can always be brought off the back shelf, polished, marked up and put in the front window when people who were previously enthusiastic about a war discover it is hard, it costs lives and money, and it can be unpopular.
Hagel starts by explaining the U.S. troops really are irrelevant in Iraq. He does not address the fact that Iraqis — with the exception of certain terrorist elements — do not want the Americans to leave. Because they know what would happen. But Hagel does see a path forward:
It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America’s options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.
What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest — without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.
OK. Syria and Iran will pick up where we leave off. Sure. We just leave, and the place will sort itself out. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis later, carved up by its neighbors, with the United States a toothless laughingstock of little further relevance on the world stage. But it won’t be our fault or our problem anymore. Everything will be fine.
The senator, I imagine, would not agree with my “toothless laughingstock” remark. I agree with, I think, exactly four sentences in his article.
It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq … To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.
No, I agree with this sentence, too:
…Regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest — without the United States.
Most assuredly. But the senator thinks all of that means drawing up immediate plans for the withdrawal of American troops, while trusting to the good graces of terrorist-supporting Syria and Iran, will lead to peace and stability in the region. I think all of that means at longlast building up the U.S. Army and preparing the nation for a long period of conflict … as should have been done five years ago. It means moving more troops into Iraq, and attacking Syrian and Iranian proxies there with a view to destroying them. In order to prevent regional powers from filling regional vacuums and working in their own self-interest. It means restoring in the world a sense of confidence that the United States will not desert its allies when the going gets tough. One more quibbling point with Hagel: Where’s the honor in abandonment?
Meanwhile:
Dan Riehl wants to know what’s up with the silence out of the White House.
An Old War Dog addresses the topic with
bitter insight.
Wretchard and Michael Totten note that absent the will to confront tyrants, all we can do is follow the New York Times advice and most vigorously shun and scorn them. Presumeably until they can’t take it anymore.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:44 am on Sunday, November 26, 2006
5 Responses to “Abandonment with Honor”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Those who want us to “abandon Iraq honorably” aren’t afraid of the inevitable chaos and bloodshed they know will follow, because they can always say Bush is to blame because he didn’t resolve the war in time. Of course, the fact that they fought tooth and nail against every move he made will be conveniently buried in the back pages.
If they think “it’s all about oil” now, wait a few years until the Islamic thugs are completely in control of the Middle East.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Is there some reason nobody has told Hagel to shut up? He’s been running his mouth for four years now.
November 26th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
“It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism.”
I can agree with that sentence. His prescription seems very reckless in the context of that sentence.
Why does he want to cast a vote in favor of instability, brutality, extremism, and terrorism?
November 27th, 2006 at 11:47 am
I seem to remember abandoning Iran (the Shah specifically) was supposed to stabilize the Middle East.
The next thing I knew, 25 years ,along with millions dead, had past and my daughter was getting orders to go to Iraq.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Everyone’s offering up advice because obviously what we’re doing isn’t working.