Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS      
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The Next War
By Terence Jeffrey
Poll
Will Hillary Clinton fight for the nomination past June 1st?


It is one thing to say U.S. troops must remain in Iraq until a stable government is established that does not threaten us or its neighbors. It is another thing to say -- given everything we know now -- that we ought to retrospectively conclude invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

President Bush said both things in a recent speech marking the fifth anniversary of the invasion.

"The answers are clear to me," he said. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision -- and this is a fight America must and can win."

For President Bush to argue today that removing Saddam was the right decision is understandable. Although Congress authorized the war, Bush decided to invade. Our troops are still there -- under his command. The war is not yet won.

But do we want future presidents to decide that repeating a war like Iraq -- given everything we know now -- would be the right thing to do? Is President Bush, by defending even now his original decision to invade Iraq, authoring a new and viable doctrine of when the United States ought to go to war that Americans should endorse and embrace?

I say: No.

What if our top military and intelligence officers had in fact gone to President Bush in early 2003, before he ordered the invasion, and said: Mr. President, our initial intelligence estimates were wrong. Saddam has destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. He is not cooperating with al-Qaida. If we invade Iraq and attempt to establish a democratic government, our analysis indicates the most influential person there will be an Iranian-born fundamentalist Shiite ayatollah, who will be able to veto our political prescriptions with his fatwas.

We estimate, Mr. President, that the vacuum created by the destruction of Saddam's army will be filled by Iranian-backed Shiite militias and terrorists, indigenous Sunni insurgents and terrorists, and a newly minted Iraqi branch of al-Qaida.

No matter what kind of constitution we urge them to write, Mr. President, any elected government in Baghdad is likely to be dominated by Shiite fundamentalist parties with historical and ongoing ties to the revolutionary regime in Tehran.

And, Mr. President, we estimate we will lose about 800 U.S. troops per year in a protracted struggle with the insurgents and terrorists. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Nearly every politician that has critisized Bush for the invasion at one time or another said that Saddam was a serious threat. Defending this country will be at the expense of human lives yes. Driving a car,contructing buildings and keeping our streets safe also has danger involved. Nobody knew how this would go and many of us are suprised at how stabilized Iraq is. Being passive hasn't worked either. Europe for example. And who knows what state our country would be in if we decided not to invade after the decision was passed by congress. People thought Reagan was crazy the way he dealt with Russia. The fact is nobody has offered any plausible alternatives to dealing with the mideast.

Subject: A cigar for Jeffrey.
Reagan did not deal with the USSR by launching an invasion.

Bush now is desperate to be vindicated by history, since the current verdict by the American people is quite negative on Iraq.

More than two out of three Americans now think the war in Iraq was not worth the cost.

That is a polite way of saying we should never have invaded. Americans are probably at the point of saying: "yes, it was a good thing to remove Saddam, and then say to the Iraqis, 'you are now on your own...we removed your despot...the rest is up to you'...".

I happen to disagree somewhat with that. I admit Bush blundered on Iraq thru sheer ignorance in failing to understand that once Saddam was removed, the force that kept the sectarian factions under control was also removed. Bush had no plan in place to deal with that. But it should have been anticipated. It should have been obvious.

But I agree with Jeffrey we can't just pull out precipitously now. It would cause more harm than good.

We may have blundered into it, but we ought not to blunder when exiting it. I would think the bulk of our forces could be out of there within two to three years. Maybe I am an optimist.

The crux of this matter is whether Iraqis can exist in harmony with one another in a nonextremist muslim state.

But that requires tolerance, respect for differing views on Islam.

That is going to be a long, hard slog, if it ever occurs.

And is it our responsibility that it occur? If so, why?

I don't believe there is much here on Jeffrey's article with which to disagree.

He has it about right.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*