September 4, 2006 

WRTA.com

 Brown Shoes Diary 

About Face

Some quotations from a prominent national journal of opinion:

"Not for the first time, we are left to wonder: Does the Bush administration truly believe Iraq is as important as it says it is?"[i]
 
"Our civilian instruments of national power remain lethargic and expensive.  We have failed to deliver on our promises to the people of Iraq."[ii]
 
"Although in guerrilla war control of territory guarantees little, after three and a half years we are not even safe in the Green Zone."[iii]
 
"The war is being lost on the homefront, but it is also being lost in Iraq."[iv]
 
"I supported the invasion of Iraq and also warned of chaos if we did not secure the country fast.  Are we losing?  Yes."[v]
 
"If our object was merely to topple a dictator whose continuation in office embodied pre-9/11 America's lack of will, then the war's already won.  On the other hand, if the purpose was to demonstrate such strength of will as to deter future troublemakers, then clearly Iraq's been a flop: Assad and the mullahs had far more sleepless nights in the spring of 2003 than they do today."[vi]
 
"By just about every measure, our strategy is not succeeding."[vii]
 

If this sounds like more bluster from the MoveOn.org crowd, think again.  These were the opinions in the most recent issue of National Review, a publication that has been a staunch supporter of George Bush and the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.  The title of the piece where you can find these quotations is "Last Chance for Iraq?"[viii]  They are not selective quotations, but represent the consensus in the piece that the Iraq War is now pretty much a disaster for America.
 
When such Bush loyalists as the National Review's opinion makers are ready to throw in the towel, one probably should admit that the war is lost.  There's no sense kidding ourselves about it and there's no sense losing any more American lives.  Crazy John Murtha is beginning to look sane.
 
If there's any consolation in losing the war in Iraq, it's that winning it doesn't matter anyway.  There are at least 50 million militant Muslims wishing us evil and most of them are NOT in Iraq.  If we woke up tomorrow and everything were calm, peaceful, orderly, and democratic in Iraq, we'd be no more secure against the terrorists than we were on September 10, 2001.  That is the flip side of the argument that we fight in Iraq so we don't have to fight at home--when the Iraq venture is over, successful or not, then it will be time for the terrorists to bring their evil to American shores again.
 
But why do the militant Muslims wish us evil?  Because they hate us.  Why do they hate us?  There seem to be two possible answers to that question.  One choice is that they hate America because of our government's involvement in the Middle East, which includes our support of Israel and our military presence on Arab soil.  The war in Iraq has not only exacerbated that hate and made it more convenient for our enemies to attack us, but it is also al-Qaeda's top marketing asset. 
 
But there are some, and George Bush and Tony Blair fall into this camp, who say they hate us because of what we are: free, democratic, and secular.  If that's the case, exactly how is making Iraq a free, democratic, secular country going to assuage their hatred?  This was a war begun with bad intelligence, but worse, with bad logic.  There is no upside to America's involvement in Iraq and there probably never was.  And the downside is plain: Iran, Syria, and their mullahs are more influential and more emboldened now than ever before.  Bush's intention to export democracy to the Middle East to combat Islamofascism has succeeded only in spreading and empowering Islamofascism.
 
At best it was wishful thinking to believe that Iraqis were pining for freedom and democracy and were willing to be an American outpost in the war on terrorism.  Sure, we removed a tyrant, albeit one who was particularly ineffective in his antagonism towards America.  He's been replaced in the short-run by chaos, which is more harmful to America than anything Saddam Hussein was up to; in the long-run, he'll be replaced by Iranian and Syrian fanatics.  The ultimate effect of the war will have been to expand the opportunity of the Islamofascists to do us harm.
 
Given the increased danger to the world due to American involvement in Iraq, it could well be that now the prudent course of action is invasion of Iran and the destruction of its entire nuclear program.  Such a course of action, however, is not feasible given the reputational capital (not to mention the costs in American lives and treasure) that George Bush has squandered on his pipedream of an Arab democracy in the Middle East.
 
Yes, getting out of Iraq will result in civil war (if it hasn't begun already), but what exactly is to be gained by staying?  If there ever was the possibility of an upside to this venture, it is long since gone.  Don't take my word for it--read what George Bush's staunchest defenders are saying.
 

[i] David Frum, author of The End of Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.
[ii] Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.
[iii] Mark Helprin, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.
[iv] Lawrence Kaplan, senior editor at The New Republic.
[v] Robert Kaplan, national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly.
[vi] Mark Steyn, columnist for National Review.
[vii] Bernard Trainor, Lt. General, U.S. Marine Corps (retired).
[viii] National Review, September 11, 2006, pp.26-31.
 

The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those of John D McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else.  He can be contacted at john@wrta.com.
 

Contact John D McGinnis

Back to Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary