Why Don’t the Republicans Want Us to Win in Iraq?
For Democrats at least, victory in Iraq could have been declared a couple of times. On to those in a moment. The root cause of this current strain of terrorism is religion. The world needs to work with Muslim leaders to restore a Caliph (not caliphate) to mend and police the faith. The Catholic faith has heeled itself under a Pope. But I always thought our incursion in the Middle East was about to end a number of times.
When Afghanistan was taken, extra force could have been calculated to capture Osama bin Laden – root cause. Instead we outsourced the prize. Victory ignored.
When the invasion occurred, destroying the Iraqi army with lighting speed, no WMD found, we could have reported “Mission Accomplished” with a complete withdrawal and cessation of hostilities.
When a country is fundamentally in civil war, as Vietnam was for decades, even a made up reason for invasion (Tonkin in 1964) goes nowhere. Inevitably you have to leave the country. For the US in April 1975, “the Fall of Saigon” happened. Was this cut and run? Let’s just say we left. What happened? The nation “equalized” and is a trading partner today.
There is no dishonor in restoring all armed forces to their home bases so they can prepare and reform a national military posture. The honor comes from acknowledging the truth and contriving as much care in your media blitz as when you started the thing.
For another view of what to do now in Iraq, the New York Times Editorial (Oct 24 2006), lays out a good charter, though I would improve a few points, for example continuing to fight in Baghdad to “stabilize” the capital is pretty short-sighted.
Scott Adams who pens Dilbert, submits his sober solution.