Two articles caught my attention the other night. First, an article at Bloomberg.com states that a new poll shows President Bush's poll numbers to be the lowest since Richard Nixon. The general consensus for the low poll numbers is because the war in Iraq is "going badly".
The second article is at ABCNews.com. This article reports on the emerging details of a terror threat which was to be carried out by followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the United States. The plan called on Al Queda members gaining access to the United States through the use of student Visas. The details of the plot were discovered in Iraq. Two interesting facts associated with the discovery of the plot: "The plan also came only months after Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No.
2, had requested that Zarqawi attempt an attack inside the United
States" and "The plot was discovered six months ago, roughly the same time that Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by
coalition forces."
Now, back to why these two articles caught my attention. The President is unpopular because the war in Iraq "is going badly". Try as I might I cannot get anyone to explain to me based upon any logical reasoning why the war "is going badly". From what I gather the war in Iraq "is going badly" because:
1). Time - We are still there, It is just taking too long, We are in a quagmire ...
2). Killed and Wounded - Too many of our troops are dying ...
3). Money - It is costing us too much money ...
4). We are not winning - The Iraqis are worse off now than when we went in ...
5). Those people - They are all crazy and you can't change those people over there ...
6). We're not being tough enough - We should bring our troops home and turn the whole place into a parking lot ...
None of these arguments whether by themselves or together make any sense.
Time. I think the problem with this is that everyone approved of us kicking Saddam's ass as long as we were able to go in and be back within six months to a year. No one is complaining that we are still in Afghanistan. Granted the footprint is smaller but the public perception is that Afghanistan is won and we are there just mopping up the Taliban and Al Queda as they stick their heads out of their holes. However, we are still there. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "Iraq is the same, only different." The fact that you can't destroy a nation and rebuild it within that time frame was lost on everyone. The reason we didn't march to Baghdad in Gulf War I was because Bush I did not want a long term occupation. He got in and got out. The justification for removing Saddam already existed. However he solved the Kuwait problem and left the other problems for another day. The same with Clinton and the no fly zones.
When I worked for my grandfather in high school he always told me "If you do it right the first time, you do not have to go back a second time to fix it." Conventional wisdom states that the military and the administration underestimated the strength of the insurgency. Okay, so do you just quit because it got harder. Simple fact is that it is not as easy as everyone thought, but we are in it now. We have to finish what we started and we have to do it right. It may take longer than we wanted but if we do not do it right this time we will be back there again. The idea of a time frame is ridiculous and arbitrary. We have to have goal post and a time frame within which to accomplish those goals. But an arbitrary time frame is nonsensical.
Killed and Wounded. This is an argument that is resurrected from the Vietnam War era when you had much larger KIA counts and you had the draft. There was a feeling of unfairness because the soldiers being killed were conscripted and forced to go to Vietnam. This argument fails in this war because the soldiers are voluntary. A large number the soldiers who are in Iraq now, knew when the signed up that they would be going to Iraq. They have a job to do and they want to get it done. Also,I recognize the lost of the life of one soldier is irreplaceable and to himself, his family and friends it is overriding. However, from a historical perspective the number of KIA is relatively low given the intensity of the conflict and the number of troops involved. The left has done all that it can to stir up the populace on this issue (pictures of flag draped coffins, Windy Cindy, daily body counts, etc.) and it has failed. This failure is due to the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not have a personal stake in the war and the ones that do understand the seriousness of their loved one's mission.
Money. Sure its expensive, but this country spends so much money at any given time that it is hard to pronounce the amount. There is also the economic fact that war is not always bad for the economy. The money, while significant, is not having a negative effect upon the economy. There is also the old adage that doing something about a problem is better than doing nothing. Another major attack against the United States homeland may very well have a major affect on the economy. The loss of access to the oil in the Middle East will have a negative effect upon the economy. Sure the money could be spent somewhere else, but would it be better spent? This is a theoretical and political argument with no real answer. I do not see money as being a legitimate reason to prematurely end the war.
We are not winning. Says who? We, for all intensive purposes, own Iraq. The insurgency cannot win if we stay the course. It does not have the resources or the ability to defeat our forces. The only way the insurgency wins is by convincing the people of the United States that Iraq is not worth the effort. The United States can not be physically forced out of Iraq - there is not a chance in hell of a Dunkirk style Operation Dynamo occurring. As long as we have the will to win, we win. We have overthrown Saddam and his brutal Baathist Regime, we have established a freely elected government, most of the country has been pacified, we have not been attacked at home, we have Iran' s panties in a knot, Syria is behaving a little better, the Taliban is insignificant, and Al Queda in Iraq has been so decimated that it is now secondary to the insurgency. We are accomplishing goals with a well trained and effective military that has suffered unbelievably low casualties given the job they have done. We are winning by any definition. We may have ups and downs as the enemy fights back, but we have not lost control.
Those people. This argument is a combination of racism and ignorance. It is based upon the idea that "those people" - Middle Easterners - are incapable of self government. The argument ignores history and is derogatory to the great cultures that have existed in the Middle Eastern history. It is essentially based upon the idea that the Arab and Persian world is barbaric and uncultured. My opinion is that the the barrier to true self government in the region is not the people, but rather the entrenchment and inflexibility of the Islamic religion. "Those people" are as capable of self governing as any other people and to suggest otherwise is an elitist better than though attitude.
We're not being tough enough - On one level I agree. See this Post. I think that to defeat the radical Islamist we have to have an all out war. Either you are with us or against us. Too many people in the Middle East have tolerated the radical aspects of Islam for too long. Until they determine that the detriments of radical Islams harassment of the Western world are outweighed by the benefits we will not be able to kill the weed at its roots in a short decisive war. If a short decisive victory is the goal then nothing short of an all out war will get the job done. In reality neither the American people or the world has the stomach for such a fight. Sure we could carpet bomb the Sunni Triangle or the smuggler towns on the border with Syria. Hell for that matter we could bomb Syria and Iran back to the stone age. No one can stop us, but it is not something for which we have the stomach. We want a surgical and clean fight but we want it done quickly. The two ideas are incompatible. If collateral damage (in the grand sense) is to be avoided the process has to be one which is slow and methodical. That is the tactic being used in the GWOT, which is now being called The Long War. Get the picture.
The main problem with this war is the defeatist attitude ingrained in a certain segment of the American people. This attitude is ingrained on the left side of the political spectrum which is unable to let go of Vietnam. Through the willing complicity of the Main Stream Media it is poured down the throats of the rest of the population. The daily doses of bad news and bad attitude is starting to take its toll. I am surprised that the Administration has been able to sustain the moral of the American people for as long as it has in light of the onslaught it has faced. The facts show that we have been and are succeeding in the Iraq War. The problem is with the perception. If it can't fit into a one hour sitcom, people seem to grow board with. The shock and awe has worn off and the network wants a new show. The problem is the last episode hasn't been produced.
UPDATE: In this same vein see Subsunk's post Does Anyone Else Detect a Trend? at BlackFive today.
Recent Comments