Why America must stay
-
I got hooked on reading “The Economist” — a well-written, truly global English perspective on current events that may be the last reminder of how well the English can think when they’re not swamped in post-modernist crypto-socialism — and they made my day by echoing the thoughts I tried to express in this previous post on why getting out of Iraq is just the wrong idea. The article is a subscription-only thing, but here are highlights from the editorial:
Every reasonable person should be able to agree on two things about America’s presence in Iraq. First, if the Iraqi government formally asks the troops to leave, they should do so. Second, the argument about whether America should quit Iraq is not the same as the one about whether it should have gone there in the first place. It must be about the future.
Amen and amen. I have heard one conservative leader say already that it helps our sense of the mission tremendously to give the new government in Iraq the say in whether we pull out or not — not the “global community” or the UN, and not even our own Congress, because all of those groups have a great, blazing neon sign of an agenda that makes their opinions almost meaningless. And make no mistake — in spite of some recent grumbling by some Iraqi leaders just for show, the nascent government knows that it doesn’t want us out yet.
“Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America’s aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq’s 18 provinces. After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics. Many voted in last month’s referendum that endorsed a new constitution: more should be drawn into next month’s election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. That will not stop the insurgency, but may lessen its intensity. It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency …
So America does have something to defend in Iraq … And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet. By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis. Over time, American numbers should fall. But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker. Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.”[emphasis mine]
Yes! I have a strong urge to be a schoolteacher and write “YES!” in the margin next to that. It is so incredibly obvious, and yet it is the simple truth that has fallen on hard times. And here’s another:
“The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher.”
And maybe there are more Americans that understand that than we are being led to believe. Goodness knows we’ve all heard often enough these days about Bush’s bad poll numbers, but here are some poll numbers you won’t see, from this brief in the Washington Post:
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”
And another reason to be tentatively optimistic — the Sheehan bus is running outta gas.
Related posts:
- Blog round-up
- The nature of an apology
- Dems without a plan
- Bush’s great speech
- Howard laying it down
Leave a Reply
2 Responses and Counting...
I agree, “The Economist” is a fine publication.
But your characterizations of the request of the Iraqi government for the U.S. to set a timeline to leave is more than just “grumbling just for show.” It was in fact a rare show of unity on the part of several Iraqi factions. It was also not a call for an immediate withdrawl. The latter misrepresentation is, however almost forgiveable because it is frequently reported as such by less reputable left wing reporters.
It was a request for a timeline to leave.
Once again, the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes.
Once again, distortion used to discredit an annoying fact, discredits the author and not the fact.
You’re right that I heard some conflicting reports about that gesture by the Iraqis. In the end, it was this same editorial by “The Economist” that led me to believe there was some posturing going on:
“… some hundred Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference in Cairo backed by the Arab League talked about setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“There is some politicking in this. In Cairo, the Shias and Kurds, who dominate Iraq’s new order, were offering an olive branch to the sullen Sunnis, who used to run the show under Saddam Hussein.”
Sorry if I made it sound over-simplistic. I just wanted to make plain that there’s more to it than had been reported in the legacy media.