Sunday, March 19, 2006
Donald Rumsfeld takes a few moments for a brief three-year retrospective and description of what's still at stake in Iraq. It strikes me that we've heard all the arguments now. Those of us who still support the war and the troops and the ongoing mission are willing to continue to give it time and trust it to those on the ground and in Washington to keep adjusting to current conditions -- conditions we keyboard warriors and even individual members of the press can only be mildly aware of or guess at. That kind of position doesn't make for good sound-bites, nor good daily optimistic analysis. Those who oppose, on the other hand, can keep hammering the cant on a daily basis until the negativism becomes part of the accepted language. I fear the cant is in the lead at the moment.
What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq
Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates -- who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years...
...The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.
Though there are those who will never be convinced that the cause in Iraq is worth the costs, anyone looking realistically at the world today -- at the terrorist threat we face -- can come to only one conclusion: Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.
Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.
What we need to understand is that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want the coalition to succeed. They want better futures for themselves and their families. They do not want the extremists to win. And they are risking their lives every day to secure their country.
That is well worth remembering on this anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Update: Of course today is bash on Rumseld day. I read this...thing...at CNN: Rumsfeld's Iraq-Germany analogy disputed. It headlines that "top officials disagree" -- then goes on to present two quotes that demonstrate -- to me at least -- that someone doesn't get it. I believe that Rumsfeld is making the rather banal point -- one that's been made to redundancy -- that if we leave Iraq too soon, we'll be leaving the good people of Iraq in a position of weakness to the bad guys who'll take over. Neither Henry Kissinger (who's criticism is pretty mild-sounding), nor Zbigniew Brzezinski (who should please grab his old boss and jump in a pit somewhere for all either of them matter) seems to acknowledge this.
Who knows how Rumsfeld's remarks were portrayed to them, anyway...but it really doesn't matter. It's an analogy. It either works for you or it doesn't. For me it does.
Of more interest is this op-ed in the New York Times: A Top-Down Review for the Pentagon. I skimmed by it the first time for the assumption that it was yet another Timesian Administration-bash, but when I noted the credential of author Paul D. Eaton, "retired Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004," I figure this is something that can't be just ignored.
It may not be right (this guy is about as angry as angry can be), there is certainly another side, but it ought to be read, regardless.
The argument we haven't heard is the geo-political one. That's the real reason for the war.
That argument is being saved for the next election.
As gas prices keep going up, slowly the public will realize that it's was not in America's best interest to allow Hussein's unfriendly government (sympathetic to terrorists) to sit on trillions of dollars worth of oil - which we would then have to buy, enabling Iraq (and Iran) to become nuclear superpowers.
The American public doesn't like intellectual economic arguments though.
oil - which we would then have to buy
As opposed to the oil we now get for free?
But otherwise your argument against continuing to allow Saddam to use oil money to fund a terroristic agenda is perfectly sound.