Fight There
Lieberman in the WSJ to his fellow Democrats* … stop and think about what you’re doing before you act. It’s a tall order. Lieberman gamely, and with stark clarity, lays out the nature of the impasse in Washington and the case for supporting the current security operations in Baghdad:
What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq.
I don’t know what’s so remarkable about that, but OK.
There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq–or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?
Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that.
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security–meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda’s stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country’s politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren’t enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.
…We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago–with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security–and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
Everything he says makes way to much sense for his target audience, people who are stuck on what were already bad ideas in November of 2006.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, “Enough.” And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war’s conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger–forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill–probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
Lieberman is already seen as a traitor to his party, and the people he is speaking to are so committed to their path, that simple common sense is unlikely to have any effect. Fortunately, as noted here previously, they have hamstrung themselves and appear to lack the cohesion and will to actually accomplish anything.
Everybody’s favorite Dutch blogger: The war on terrorism is global, and whether you like it or not, whoever’s fault you think that is, Iraq is a key battlefield.
BlueCrab on Lieberman’s call for “ceasefire” and why it’s in the Dems’ best interest:
They have long been thought of as weak on national security. This whole effort could make them seen as pro-American defeat as well. They will also be setting a really bad precedent that will come back to haunt a Democrat holding the office of the president in the future. They really need to keep that in mind.
It is astonishing that nobody in the White House seemed to understand that we could be “greeted with flowers” by 80% of the population and still have an enormous problem on our hands. The opposition now seems to be making exactly the same mistake concerning withdrawal, assuming that it is our presence that fuels the conflict, and that it will remain confined inside Iraq. What if it isn’t, and what if it won’t?
Booman, in the Baby = Bathwater camp, guzzles deep of the Hersh Koolaid.
* Yeah, I know, he’s an “Independent,” but has not cut ties to the Dems and as this appeal to reason indicates, still holds out hope for them.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:06 am on Monday, February 26, 2007
5 Responses to “Fight There”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“Lieberman is already seen as a traitor to his party, and the people he is speaking to are so committed to their path, that simple common sense is unlikely to have any effect.”
So true.
It is stunning, that Lieberman has to make a statement such as this, to begin with. The anti’s are doing this at this time for one reason and one reason only. Their deranged despise of George Bush in the hopes they hand him a defeat, they have been wanting to do since the year 2000. The anti’s are saying in essence ‘the hell with_________’, fill in the blank. We are after, Bush.
Throughout American history, there have been balker’s, little minded people and outright cowards of things that need or needed to be confronted. This is no different. What lies (and they do) out there as the enemy not only affects the United States of America, but a world that enjoys the freedom (or wishes to have)the freedom that this enemy has expressly stated they will, if not confronted, extinguish.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I think Joe hit the nail on the head with this: “Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
Once upon a time an opposition party would change strategy in order to insure victory after setbacks. But that is too hard for the Dems-why do something different when you can just quit the fight? It probably won’t hurt them with their constituency, but that does not mean that it won’t hurt us at all.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
New Surrendercrat Strategy: Betray The Troops — Update 13
Words from the last of the sane Democrats: The Choice on Iraq I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. — Sen. Joseph Lieberman Two months into the 110th Congress,
February 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Al Qaeda felt they could take on the U.S. because they deluded themselves into believing that they single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union–ignoring the facts playing havoc within the USSR at the time, and fact that they were armed, and otherwise supported by The Great Satan.
Retreating from Iraq hands them a victory they could never otherwise dream of, and will be seen by their fellow Muslims as such. If we are shocked by the rate of slaughter perpetrated on the streets of Baghdad, I suggest that we consider what that same kind of slaughter would mean when perpetrated on the streets of any American city you care to name. Do you think that the civilian justice system will be able to handle it? Or will we have troops on the streets? Will those American Muslims who are now silent about terror join their brothers? Look at what is happening in Britain, where jihad is looking more and more attractive to Muslim children, regardless of what their parents think. Why remain on a side that considers its culture unworthy of a fight?
Europe, especially, had better hope we don’t give a monumental victory to the enemy, because they will be the first to feel the effects. But not the last, by any means.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Fox News Live Brit Hume, discussing the possiblity of Joseph Isadore Lieberman, may be turning Republican.