Or so says the Washington Post, a substantially liberal newspaper of record. From their December 1st Editorial:
THOUGH YOU wouldn't know it from the partisan rhetoric, there is substantial agreement in Washington on the strategy for Iraq outlined yesterday by President Bush. The president denounced those who would "cut and run" from the country and in turn was lambasted by Democrats for inflexibly staying the course. In fact, many Democrats in Congress agree with the principal elements of Mr. Bush's "strategy for victory," which are to build up a representative Iraqi government and security forces to defend it in the next 12 months while gradually shrinking the numbers and duties of U.S. troops.
This is, of course, correct. Bush has been trying to dig his approval ratings out of the hole by accusing Democrats of wanting to cut and run. Democrats are jumping up and down on his head trying to keep him in the hole by accusing him of wanting nothing more than to "stay the course," as if Bush intended to stay indefinitely with no plan for wrapping up. Both views are largely distortions.
Mr. Bush rejected the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal, saying he would "settle for nothing less than complete victory." But such a timetable already exists, drawn up by the generals who report to Mr. Bush and supported by leading Democrats: It calls for the reduction of American forces from 160,000 to 100,000 during 2006. Such a "phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq" was endorsed by the Senate two weeks ago by a vote of 79 to 19. Notwithstanding the endorsement by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) yesterday of the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for withdrawal within six months, many senior Democrats oppose an immediate U.S. pullout. Democratic senators such as Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) agree with Mr. Bush's description of the dangers of allowing al Qaeda's forces in Iraq to claim a victory or permitting Iraq to collapse into a sectarian civil war.
Some Democrats clearly do want immediately withdrawal (6 months is immediate for all practical purposes), and there is a reasonable argument for this. If the Iraqis have a clear idea that our departure is imminent, they will have a stronger motive for taking responsibility and doing the right thing. And perhaps the presence of American troops is the only thing that keeps the war going. So announcing that we are withdrawing as soon as possible is the best way to ensure victory in Iraq and get our boys home.
The trouble is that once you turn "immediate withdrawal" into a reasonable strategy, as I just did, it becomes almost indistinguishable from the strategy we are in fact pursuing. The only difference is that the timetable is more realistic. Even if we tried to get out "immediately," it will take a lot longer than six months. So far the Iraqis have been meeting every target on the timetable. I'm guessing we will stick to it.
As for what we have achieved, here are the words of Gerard Baker, writing in the London Times:
Success [in Iraq] is articulated not in the indicative but in the subjunctive: potential threats removed; future wars that don’t have to be fought. It is numbered in the unenumerable: the slow awakening of human freedom; the steady, incremental spread of dignity it brings to people cowed and trampled for decades.
And yet it leaves its mark in tangible ways, even in the turmoil of Iraq. In a couple of weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls in their millions for the third time this year (the exercise of democracy can be habit-forming, can’t it?). This time they will choose a government that will have real power over the direction of the country. It will be a genuine first in the history of a region where medievalist tyranny has enjoyed five centuries of extra time.
One thing the English know how to do is speak English.
Recent Comments