This is no time to go wobbly
- Posted by Beth on November 13th, 2006 filed in Crime, General, Iran, Iraq, Islamofascism, Politics, Stupid, Support the Troops, The War, WTF
“Remember, George, this is no time to go wobbly,” said the great Margaret Thatcher to the elder George Bush during the Gulf War.
What we need now is a strong shot of the Iron Lady’s (and I pray, George W. Bush’s) resolve, in light of reports such as this:
The Bush administration and the new Democratic leadership in Congress are looking for the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to provide realistic recommendations and political protection against criticism if the U.S. military mission falls short of original expectations.
The commission’s discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the United States concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.
An alternative proposal, that the United States commit money and troops toward stabilizing Iraq before a withdrawal, appears less likely of adoption, according to sources familiar with the proposals.
And yes, Robert Gates looks to be in the camp of the former option.
I take everything I read from Newsweak for what it is–carefully crafted opinion thinly disguised as “journalism”–but their cover story this week is not encouraging to those of us who favor stabilizing Iraq (aka “victory”). And how does Newsweak characterize the Iraq Study Group? Just as you might expect.
With Congress lost, George W. Bush is looking for a way out of Iraq, and his father’s men, led by Jim Baker, are riding in to help.
.::groan::. Looking for a way out of Iraq? Say it ain’t so! One might think Bush has gone wobbly already by reading words like that. I’m not so sure that’s the case–although the arrival of Gates, if the above is true, is certainly worrisome (I’ll just say it) a problem. I don’t think the fact that Gates is one of the Bush 41 crew is necessarily a problem in itself; so was Dick Cheney, and Brent Scowcroft has said, “Dick Cheney I don’t know anymore,” since Cheney’s awakening on 9/11. Well, Cheney’s not the only one who had that awakening, but apparently Scowcroft and his fellow improbably-named “realists” have not. I can only hope (probably foolishly) that Gates isn’t one who, like Baker and Scowcroft, is still living in the 1990’s, because the true “realists” live in the present. Most especially, the Iraqis do.
I can only hope that the Iraq Study Group isn’t looking to find a way to salvage their own prestige, looking for a way to say “we were right.” If they believe finding a way to leave Iraq without finding a way to ensure stability is the way to do it, I think they’ll find they’re wrong when they see the real disaster that will erupt once we have left Iraq. “Political protection against criticism.” Bollocks. The Iraqi people have borne enough burden; they deserve to have stability brought to their nation, whatever it takes.
What’s needed is RESOLVE. The Iraqi people need it for obvious reasons, and America needs it because to show anything but resolve will be tantamount to surrender. The Iranians, the North Koreans, Syria, Venezuela, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, all of our enemies will be able to say they were right–that America has no courage behind our convictions, no stomach for doing what it takes to defend ourselves; that we are, as Osama bin Laden said in 1998, a “paper tiger.” Don’t believe it? How about believing this?
Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop.”
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would “prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.”
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America).”
“Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.”
Don’t think it’s just idiot “palestinians” saying that, either; the message will be loud and clear. Read more about the “paper tiger” at QandO.
James Baker, Robert Gates: are you listening to the enemy at all? Or will you choose instead to deal with the devil and negotiate with their leaders?
Also see:
And now, I think I’m going to go throw up. I don’t have the stomach for “wobbly.”
bird dog says:
Beth:
Sympathetic to your sentiments, but we are now trying to police a civil war among Sunnis and Shias (and their external supporters), and we are standing in the middle. Our soldiers aren’t made for that kind of job.
We gave them a chance - now it’s up to them.
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » In Defense of Optimism says:
[...] Pretty much sums it up for me. To be sure, I have moments of real stress about the issues of the day. But in the long run and when looking at the real big picture, I have to have faith that things will work out for good in the end. [...]
Beth says:
Bird Dog, I know it probably sounds as though I’m being idealistic, but I’m far from it. I’d have zero problem with ousting Maliki and “letting” a Musharraf-type leader manhandle the problems in there. Obviously, it wouldn’t be an ideal democracy, but apparently they aren’t ready for an ideal democracy, and frankly, they don’t even seem to want real freedom (obviously, there are exceptions, but they’re clearly outnumbered). I’ve always been more of the mind that Islam is incompatible with democracy and freedom.
THAT SAID, there’s Turkey and the Kurdish region–neither is anywhere near perfect, but they’re not hostile to us and they are relatively at peace. Same with Egypt. Pakistan? Well, at least Musharraf is working with us, even if the rest of Pakistan isn’t. I think that even a severely flawed “democracy” like others in the region isn’t a bad goal.
I just don’t think looking for an exit strategy is wise until we either get someone in there that CAN handle the problems OR we get the problems under control ourselves. We can NOT “redeploy” or draw down with things the way they are. If we do, those Iraqis that are left will end up either dead or aligning with terrorists. And remember the Vietnamese “boat people?” Do we want that kind of thing happening again with Iraq? I know I sure don’t.
raz0r says:
Cut and Run, or whatever euphamism they choose to call it, shouldn’t be an option. If the US leaves before it’s stablilized, we’ll be back. And not in 10 to 20 years either. That region will light up, and US troops will have to return, and it’ll be a far bloodier conflict.