Banner ad

Thursday, November 17, 2005

I have my disagreements with John McCain on a whole host of domestic issues, but he is exactly right about this amdnement that recently passed in the Senate.
IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.
At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.

Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.

Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.
The Senators are not passing meaningless amendments in a vacuum. Both the Iraqis and the terrorists are paying attention. The terrorists realize that the only way for them to win is for our will to flag and for us to withdraw our troops too early. That is why they will continue their murderous tactics as long as they think that such violence will succeed in affecting public opinion over here. THe Senate has now told them that their tactics are working. And McCain is so right about the effect of these words in the Senate on the Iraqis themselves.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.
I teach a class on the American Revolution and the Civil War and we were just winding up our study of the Revolution yesterday with a contrafactual discussion of what would have happened if the French had not helped us at Yorktown. The consensus of the class is that Washington and the Americans would have continued their defensive-offensive tactics until British public opinion demanded an end to the war. I suspect that they are right. And remember, that by the second half of 1864 that that was the South's main hope in the Civil War. An exhausted public is one of the main advantages that a weaker power has in fighting a war. Think of Vietnam. The terrorists in Iraq have learned the lesson well that a democracy will only fight as long as the will of the people is behind the fight. So, they must weaken that will. The Senators voting for this amendment have just given them a victory.

0 comments: