Why we have to win in Iraq

Richard Brookhiser at The Observer says:

The solution now is to put 30,000 troops into Baghdad, without stripping Anbar, and kill the enemies of order. If the generals say they don’t need 30,000 more troops, find new generals.

To which Bill Quick replies with:

Or find new opinion writers, who can explain how killing “enemies of order” in Baghdad will do anything to solve the primary problem, which is the Islamofascist regime in Iran.

Here’s the thing - I agree with both of them to a certain degree.  I hope they realize how connected their goals are.

Yes, Iran is probably the number one issue facing the Middle East today.  Iran is pulling the strings all over the region, and anyone who doubts that...well, at this point I doubt your sanity.

But.  We cannot deal practically with Iran on ANY level - diplomatically or militarily - unless we are operating from a position of strength.  If you doubt that, I again call your sanity into question.  We cannot achieve any level of strength in the Middle East, no political leverage at all, unless we tame Iraq and begin a program of cultural, monetary and military exchange and support.

We need military bases in Iraq in order to be credible to Iran.  Only then can diplomacy have a chance.  Diplomacy without the credibility of military might is nothing more than empty begging by a weaker foe.  Do you respect weak people who beg you?  Tell yourself the truth.  Do you respect weak failures who get on their hands and knees and beg you to change the very direction of your life?

No one does.  Not even the most bleeding of hearts respects a weak failure.  People always say they do, but no one really respects weakness.  James Baker’s plan is essentially a template to create real, unavoidable and irreparable weakness.

In a perfect world, Iranians would rise up against their oppressive leadership and institute the democratic reforms that so many long for in that country.  They need help to make it happen.  It would be about a million times easier to effectively encourage democracy from within Iran if we were...you know...next door.  We have to win in Iraq.  Winning in Iraq, in my opinion, is achieving stabilization and rebuilding a majority of the infrastructure.  So Bill, that’s why we absolutely must accomplish the goal of stabilizing Iraq, even if it means more troops or no withdrawal date or splitting the country by tribe.

By the way, Brookhiser is wrong when he says “this is not international social work.” Yes it is.  That’s exactly what this is.  Punish some and rehabilitate others, all for the good of the community.  Like it or not, we have been pushed into the role of the Department of World Social Services.  Well...this is where we are right now.  No matter how it started, we are in Iraq now.  So we can do this right, or we can forget about ever influencing the Middle East again.  We can leave it to Europe, China and Russia.

Does anyone, even the moonbattiest moonbat or the most isolationist libertarian, really think that’s a great idea?

We can’t do anything about Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran until and unless we finish in Iraq first.  We have to start somewhere.  This is not a weekend project.  This is not even something that will be finished in a decade.  We’re talking about transforming the political landscape of entire nations.  Even with the support of the American people and the world, it would take decades.  With everyone at home and abroad crying defeat - it may never get done.

The cancer to which Bill alludes will simply continue to grow.  We must finish in Iraq and massive numbers of fresh troops are part of how we can make that happen.  Then we can effectively deal with Iran.  Then we’ll see what the Saudis and Syria have to say without any real power behind them anymore.

Something else to keep in mind - the House of Saud owns the Bush family lock, stock & barrel.  I don’t dispute that at all.  However, I do think that the chance of anyone with the name Bush ever being elected to any office again are somewhere between slim and my chances to have a three-way with Salma Hayek and my wife.

Anyway, I think that Bill Quick and Richard Brookhiser are in the same chapter here, just not on the same page.

Posted by JimK at 05:42 PM on December 13, 2006
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |

Categories: News,  Politics
Tags:
Technorati: military war iraq iran politics

Post a Comment:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://www.right-thoughts.us/index.php/trackback/2749/X71425v7/

Trackbacks:

No trackbacks yet.