27 February 2007

The Choice on Iraq

As our father commented to us yesterday, this article by our favorite Independent Senator, Joe Lieberman, is "a must read." And further, "when a patriot writes, we should read."

We hope his senatorial colleagues--both Democratic and Republican--will heed the words of Senator Lieberman, and support General Petraeus and our troops in Iraq. As our father pointed out, if they weren't going to give Gen. Petraeus the time necessary to win, they shouldn't have unanimously approved his appointment.

There should be no deadline for freedom and liberty. You cannot "re-deploy" democracy.

The Choice on Iraq
(subscription required)
By Senator Joe Lieberman

Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.

The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.

At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad--the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in--and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.

We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.

But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.

Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Senator from Connecticut.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.


Justin said...

Once again, I really do hope we manage to salvage some semblance of victory from this ill-conceived blunder in Iraq. The question is, though, how will more time or more troops solve the problem? Like most Americans, I have no confidence in our current executive administration and the reasons we originally went to war have been twisted, morphed, and re-packaged. The one bright spot is that a Democratic congress has finally started to hold Bush and his cohorts accountable and the sooner we can relieve ourselves of this incompetent leadership the sooner we might have a chance at seeing progress. Thank goodness abortion and gay marriage won't be the driving issues our next president will have to prove himself (herself) on. Or maybe I should wish that our most pressing issues were so insignificant.

On that note, I have been interested to follow the campaign of Mitt Romney and I really do hope he makes up some ground. I like Mitt and respect him and I think he would make a good president. As his own team puts it, he's like Bush, only smart. Mitt is positioning himself in the market and throwing some bones to the religious right pack of dogs, but I think his true core is moderate and fair. (Unlike most of my comments) His campaign is really interesting for a number of reasons. First, he puts all the Mormon John Kerry haters firmly in uncomfortable hypocrite territory. (flip flop flip flop) Second, it makes for strange conflicts between religious voters and Mormons. It puts Mormons on the receiving end of religious intolerance and ignorance at the hands of "fellow" christians and reminds us that as much as the church has gone mainstream, it still ain't mainstream. I have also read several online debates between Mormons and haters and find misinformation on both sides to be amusing. The haters have a range of wild ideas and false "facts" and many Mormons are ignorant to the genuine criticisms of the doctrine and church history- ie. temple rites and Masonry, Blood Atonement and ritual execution, DNA and the BOM, sanctioned racism and sexism, etc. I'm not worried about how those things will affect Mitt's decisions because HIS life is more important to me than the bizarre life of Brigham Young or any other church leader for that matter, and his record speaks for itself. We Mormons can't hide from the fact that our religion has ugly warts and unsavory aspects, however our contributions in life should highlight the positive elements of Mormonism and in a fair world we will be judged on those merits. Too bad for Mitt the world is not fair.

Justin said...

I should have said: Too bad for Mitt the AMERICAN VOTER is not fair. In his personal and professional life he has been blessed abundantly and well-compensated for his extraordinary talents.