IRAQ STRATEGY
I've been hearing two main arguments: (1) We should not be there and should withdraw, and (2) we are there so we must do what is necessary to win. Lately I'm hearing a third, (3) because we are there, we must withdraw. It's not a new argument, just getting new ink. It is the argument that suicide bombers are motivated by the desire to get rid of Western occupation, and that more Western occupation produces easier recruitment for suicide bombers. For example, there were no suicide bombers from Iraq before occupation, now there are lots. There are none from Sudan despite its brutal Muslim regime. There are lots from Saudi Arabia. It argues that withdrawal would relieve the threat - something Bush is not prepared to agree with. The argument is presently cogently, backed by hard data, here.
Expect Dems to borrow heavily from Pat Buchanan in its campaign rhetoric next year. And do not expect Bush to have good counterarguments beyond what he has already said.
For me, I have a hard time getting past the simple logic that when somebody punches you, you must punch back. The question has always been whether Iraq was the right enemy. The adminstration has never explained its (real) strategic reason for choosing Iraq. I'm sure they have a strategy, but Americans do not know what it is, and that has always troubled me.
1 comment:
I think Bush has to be vague in his strategy since the enemy is listening. It's a positive that terrorists are coming to Iraq from countries we cannot invade (like Saudi Arabia). It gives us a chance to kill them without going to war against their homeland.
The Buchanans hate globalism as much as the terrorists. Pat doesn't like cheap foriegn labor and the mulims don't like American culture. It's not whether Pat's arguments are right or wrong. We just no longer live in a world where his solutions are possible. The American government knows that it cannot isolate itself, because individual compaines that employ Americans will stay engaged in the world. If the American government ignores the world it will have a big impact on our economy.
Pat's right that it all goes back to World War II, but once we decided to eliminate Hitler, we couldn't return to isolationism. Pat seems to think that we can change that reality now. I doubt our economy would be as strong today if we had stayed isolationist back then. Without rescuing Europe we'd hardly have a market for our products. But we would have avoided Vietnam and most likely 911. That's the trade-off.
And who knows what would have happened with the Soviet Union. Another peace treaty between Hitler and Stalin may have given the world two enemies of freedom that could have chewed up 75% of the world.
Invading Iraq has brought many positives. The freed Iraqis have had an election and even Khadaffi has given up his weapons. Just like our choices in the early 1940s make it impossible to return to the old ways, the things happening now in the Middle East will forever change politics there. The road will be bumpy and critics will scream, and even if the Bush Administration cannot articulate the arguments for this invasion very well, history will see this as a pivitol moment nonetheless.
I just wish Bush would explain why the working people of this country must continue to service a growing debt to satisfy the pork cravings of every last congressman.
Post a Comment