Bush says our greatest threats are Al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran (who aren't linked to AQ but who cares). Funny, I thought the 9/11 guys were Saudis based in Afghanistan.
Through the looking glass......
April 11, 2008 -- 7:31 a.m. EDT
A Deployment Debate
That Can't Be Won
By JOSEPH SCHUMAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
Debate on whether the U.S. needs an exit strategy for Iraq -- a dispute at the heart of this week's focus on troop numbers -- boils down to the same clash of convictions that has dogged the war since the invasion: Does the combat in Iraq serve to protect Americans from the terrorism that staggered the country on 9/11, or not?
Fulfilling expectations that have been building all year and solidified with Gen. David Petraeus's congressional testimony this week, President Bush yesterday confirmed the current troop withdrawals will be the last until an assessment can be made about where that leaves the war. And if Gen. Petraeus and his team determine a smaller number of troops could jeopardize the significant progress Mr. Bush now sees on the political, economic and security fronts in Iraq … the president didn't exactly say. But he indicated that nothing short of an economically viable, politically thriving and self-protecting Iraq is acceptable.
Hours after Mr. Bush spoke, and amid harsh criticism of his decision from Democrats and some Republicans, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he hoped an improving security situation in Iraq would indeed let the U.S. pull out additional forces. But he acknowledged there was no chance the deployment would fall below 100,000 by the end of the year and the start of the next presidential administration. And he said he and Gen. Petraeus were effectively on the same page, as The Wall Street Journal reports, since any withdrawal will depend on the assessment set to begin in September.
Mr. Bush also confirmed that a month before that assessment begins, the Army will reduce the length of time of troop deployments to the war zone to 12 months from the current 15 months, acknowledging Pentagon warnings about an overstretched military and that "the stress on our force is real." In contrast, he described the Iraqi Army and police force as "increasingly capable and leading the fight to secure their country." And echoing years of similar promises, he said American forces will be able to focus on terrorists and extremists "as Iraqis assume the primary role in providing security."
And it's those terrorists that remain Mr. Bush's reason for resisting the antiwar sentiment in Congress and U.S. opinion polls, that make it worth the "sacrifices" he conceded the war is taking on the American military, the lives of the country's soldiers and the U.S. Treasury. "We face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again," Mr. Bush said, in arguing the costs of the war in Iraq pale in comparison to the costs of waging the Cold War. There are enough al Qaeda leaders in Iraq, he added, for U.S. Special Forces to launch "multiple operations every night to capture or kill" them.
Iraq, he argued, "is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies." An American "failure" in Iraq, he added, would embolden Iran's "radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region." Mr. Bush also maintained such a scenario would bolster the confidence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, remind world-wide extremists of past U.S. retreats and "diminish our nation's standing in the world, [leading] to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland." What the president instead envisions is a U.S. victory that deals setbacks to Iran and global terrorism, thanks to an Iraq "with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country."
And this is where Mr. Bush and those who oppose his troop-deployment plans diverge. Middle East experts point out that Shiite Muslim Iran and essentially Sunni al Qaeda are two very different entities, that the former is a neighbor Iraq must live with and the latter didn't exist in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Congressional Democrats point to U.S. intelligence estimates that describe the war in Iraq as one of the biggest recruitment factors for Islamist terrorism. And many others cite the U.S.'s five years of experience at war in Iraq to describe Mr. Bush's goal of a peaceful and united Iraq as more Utopian than realistic, at least any time soon. |
