The Washington Times reported June 11 that Democrats in the House and Senate are currently circulating more than forty pieces of legislation that would seek to end America's involvement in Iraq. The Times quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as saying, "We're fairly well set up now as to how we're going to do it and when we're going to do it."
What's emerging in the Congress is a Democrat plan to bombard President Bush with bill after bill after bill calling for troop withdrawals over very short periods of time. By forcing such legislation through Congress, Democrats, who know the President will veto the measures, hope to keep up the attacks on President Bush and Congressional Republicans as part of an overarching strategy to maximize their chances of success in the 2008 elections.
By playing on the public's growing disillusionment with the war in Iraq, Democrats are ignoring the very real consequences for our national security that will inevitably accompany a premature troop withdrawal, and they are doing so purely for political advantage. Though I've written about the likely consequences before, it's important to review them once again:
•1) Iranian influence throughout the Middle East will be substantially increased, and Tehran will feel even more empowered to continue the development of nuclear technology in open defiance of an impotent United Nations.
•2) Iran will be able to continue to impede any possible progress in Iraq, without interference from the U.S., and will likely help Iraqi Shi'a consolidate power in a fashion that will guarantee a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad.
•3) Syria and Hezbollah will continue to be used by an even more powerful Iran in limited proxy wars with Israel that kill innocent civilians and threaten unrest throughout the entire region.
•4) Terrorists everywhere will see an American departure from Iraq as a victory along the lines of the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They will rally radical elements to their cause and will begin in earnest the systematic targeting of pro-Western, secular Arab governments.
•5) Iraq will complete its devolution into a classic failed state, sending hundreds of thousands of refugees across the borders of neighboring states, further destabilizing the Middle East.
•6) A wider regional war may ensue as Sunni governments, who are increasingly nervous about an Iran-led Shiite ascendancy in the Middle East, may feel they have no choice but to act on their threats to intervene in Iraq on behalf of the Sunni minority.
•7) The Kurds, already pushing hard to consolidate their position of autonomy, may take advantage of the power vacuum created by a U.S. departure to declare their independence, provoking Turkey, Iran and Syria into military action to crush Kurdish terrorist elements and prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdistan.
The risks to our long-term national security are potentially very grave and must be considered when discussing what course we should take in Iraq. Yet the risks that I just outlined are being dismissed out of hand by the congressional majority while Democrat leaders clamor repeatedly that Republicans will pay at the voting booth for continuing the Iraq war.
And don't be fooled by the promises to keep "just enough forces to train the Iraqis and fight al-Qaeda." It may be a great political statement, but the concept begins to fall apart once you get beyond the words and focus on what that strategy really entails.
Despite a late start training Iraqi security forces, the program is fully underway now and is due to be increased throughout 2007. Part of that training involves conducting combat operations alongside Iraqi units, not just providing instruction inside of a base camp and sending them out to face a ruthless insurgency on their own. Compare the idea to teaching a child to ride a bicycle or drive a car. You wouldn't give them a lesson in the comfort of your living room and then send them out to engage in a potentially dangerous activity without providing the necessary guiding hand to help them along until they are able to do it on their own. The analogy may seem simplistic, but the principle is the same.
And when conducting offensive combat operations, there is no way to separate al-Qaeda from the various other elements contributing to the violence in Iraq. It would be nice if al-Qaeda members stayed in one place, all bunched together, so that we could end the terrorist problem once and for all. Unfortunately, that's not the case and al-Qaeda is not in one place, but scattered throughout the country, intermingled with the population, and conducting attacks not just on Americans, but on Shi'a and Sunni as well.
Brave young Americans are bleeding and dying in the cities and on the roads of Iraq every day. Our elected leaders owe it to them and to us as a nation to put partisan politics aside and frankly debate what might happen if American forces are prematurely withdrawn.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
Maybe this is one good reason why Harry Reid's numbers are lower than they've ever been...........either that or because he's a weasel.
As you know, I have challenged the correctness of your analysis of the situation in Iraq, including the points you make here regarding Iran. So I will limit myself to your comments on the Democrats and Republicans.
First of all, Congressional politics regarding "withdrawal" should be seen as a complex process that is occurring on several levels, some in the open, some behind the scenes. This is the way Congress always operates. The current immigration legislation is undergoing the same process. The 2008 election is an elephant in the room, but there are serious issues regarding foreign policy which concern members of both parties. They traditionally have worked out some sort of bipartisan agreement among themselves, although this may not be reported openly in public. It may not seem this is likely soon, considering the bickering going on and the performance of Congress over the past decade.
The role of the Executive, has evidently been increased by Cheney with his large personal staff and Cheney people placed in State,the Pentagon, NSA, the CIA and other agencies. This is a concern to both parties. Whether and when the United States system of government will regain a traditional balance of a constitutional is a broader question, which we might discuss at some time.
I do not believe many of the leading members of either party expect the United States is going to withdraw the presence of some of our forces either from Iraq or the region for a decade, unless events make it necessary. There is, I think, a realization that the invasion of Iraq was a serious strategic mistake. The present danger of staying in force justifies efforts to press for withdrawal and criticizing the administration's avoiding having a clear policy.
No one knows the domestic political repercussions when the public accepts this. There is a concern that the military already has been overtaxed and has to be rebuilt and repaired. It cannot sustain its present level of engagement in Iraq for another year, unless a draft in instituted. The recent increase of troop numbers, the attempt to pacify Baghdad by more traditional counterinsurgency strategies, and renewed efforts to train Iraqi forces and better conditions for reconstruction and employment seemed unrealistic and "too little, too late" to many in the Congress and the military. Given the number of forces available, it appeared to many as delusionary or smoke and mirrors stuff from an administration that has no real strategy beyond trying to prolong the war and maintain some sort of Iraqi government that would work with Washington. I don't think the Bush administration could have found a senior general to lead it.
Zbigniew Brzezinski offered Congress an outline of our position in Iraq and the world today and the present and possible risks of continuing to deal with Iraq and other nations in the way administration has. SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI February 1, 2007 http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976901034
It has been noted by ZB and other observers that this administration has been characterized by "five people making decisions," not seriously considering the counsel and views of anyone else, and rarely listening at all to advice that they don't find agreeable.
The Congress should assert itself.