|
The War Strategy
Thought this was a good article. Clear, concise, to the point.
Source
| quote: |
Yes, Virginia, the U.S. Has a War Strategy
December 6, 2005; Page A21
One of the most remarkable assertions of the anti-Bush, antiwar choristers is that the U.S. has no "strategy for victory." One wonders where they have been these last four years. The strategy's goal has been clear since September 11, 2001: To defeat the jihadists who made it abundantly evident on that bright morning in New York that they are waging war on the U.S.
The U.S. method has been spelled out repeatedly as well: Attack the jihadists on their own ground and replace their protectors with democratic governments that share U.S. values. This has been defined as the "Bush doctrine." In November's 60th-anniversary issue of Commentary, no fewer than 36 leading scholars debated it, a rather strong suggestion that such a doctrine exists. Admittedly, they were mostly friendly "neocons," but who else these days has anything interesting to say about foreign policy?
The Bush critics aren't dense. They know full well what the Bush doctrine is all about. They know as well that it has had some rather impressive results, forcing the leaders of al Qaeda out of their base in Afghanistan and beginning the process of turning that war-stricken country into a state where an elected government backed by NATO forces provides a higher degree of personal security than Afghans have enjoyed in decades.
The invasion of Iraq was not only about weapons of mass destruction, although "Bush-lied" canards have confused this issue as well. It was also about establishing a U.S. war-fighting beachhead in the heart of the Middle East, the principal breeding ground of terrorists. The invasion took out one terrorism sponsor, Saddam Hussein, and gave the U.S. a presence for intimidating two others, Iran and Syria.
The claim that Saddam had no connections with al Qaeda -- because Arab socialism and Islamic zealotry don't mix -- came from CIA analysts with an unhappy record of inaccurate perceptions. There are in fact plenty of circumstantial links, but even if Saddam wasn't doing al Qaeda's bidding, he certainly sponsored Mideast terrorism.
To counter the latest "no-strategy" claims, the White House was forced to explain it all again last week. Mr. Bush did so in a speech to naval cadets at Annapolis and the White House put up a long document on its Web site detailing the seven pillars of a policy fleshed out as long ago as 2003.
Press sophisticates complained that there was nothing new. Of course not. The strategy has been there all along. It was endorsed by both parties and dates back, in rudimentary fashion, to the Clinton years. Serious Democrats like Sen. Joe Lieberman know that it would be a grave error to abandon it at this point, a point he made in this newspaper last week.
The document on the White House Web site details a U.S. government doctrine designed and implemented by the commander in chief and approved by the Congress. It is the core of U.S. foreign policy and even though it is not "new," the greater detail makes the document worth reading by anyone with a serious interest in understanding what is going on and what is at stake. Cynics might scoff that it is White House "propaganda," which of course it is in the broadest sense of that word, but it is also an effort to explain to Americans why winning in Iraq is of vital importance to them.
That such an explanation should be necessary at this point derives from a number of factors. The American political debate has become intensely polarized as the Democrats and their allies in the press and academia have become increasingly anxious about their chances of regaining political power. This is manifested in something approaching hatred for George W. Bush. Because of the president's domestic failures, particularly his loss of popularity on the right through his failure to control government expansionism, the Democrats sense weakness.
There are also signs of public weariness with the war. The "War on Terror" has dragged on longer than America's involvement in World War II, although of course with infinitely fewer casualties. The Bush critics detect impatience in the electorate, hence their calls for setting a specific date when the U.S. will withdraw its troops from Iraq -- a move that would clearly be an enormous mistake, giving Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his murderous gang an incentive to continue their campaign of bombings and mutilation.
The Department of Homeland Security is proud of the fact that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and that is indeed something to be thankful for. But it has perhaps given Americans a false sense of security that erodes the shock of the 9/11 atrocity and leads to a belief that the "War on Terror" is not as serious as it was first made out to be. One problem is the abstract description. It is not a war on terror, but a defensive struggle against ruthless fanatics who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of Western civilization. They dream of an Islamic "caliphate" stretching from the Far East to the coast of Spain, ruled over by the equivalent of Iran's ayatollahs with an equal disdain for human freedom and dignity.
Finally, there may be a legitimate anxiety that the administration has underestimated the enemy. Nowhere is the antipathy toward America and the West more clearly manifested than in Iran. The mullahs are hell-bent on developing a nuclear weapon with which to threaten their neighbors. Getting Iraq under control is urgent because of what may be the next threat in the Middle East.
Mr. Bush made it clear at the outset that this war would be a long one -- 30 years in the view of some analysts. It is being fought in the shadows on many fronts. It depends heavily on the gathering of intelligence on where the enemy is and what he is up to, something that the CIA is finally beginning to take seriously through the deployment of more secret agents. But the strategy couldn't be clearer: Defeat the fanatics and tyrants by promoting freedom and democracy. The strategy is in fact working, believe it or not.
Write to George Melloan at [email protected] |
|
). The cons are, well difficult to say at this point. From a quantitative standpoint we've been at war for 2.5 years at a cost of $225 billion and some 2,100 dead. I won't even try to extrapolate that out to 30 years as this author suggests. I won't even try to guess at corrolary effects such as anti-US resentment and growing Al-Qaeda support that this war has encouraged. This war isn't consolidating radicalism in one place, it's causing a sharp growth in radicalism. But hey, tell me honestly, is this war worth the costs?
