The 9-11 Commission, in assessing the failures that led to the al Qaeda attacks of 9-11, identified our most fundamental failure as being a failure to "imagine" the gravity of the threat from radical Islam and the means by which such threat might be realized. Now, but a few years removed from 9-11, the radical Islamic ideology at the core of the 9-11 attacks is still metasticizing. We are fighting that radical Islam today in Iraq - both of the Salfi al Qaeda variety and the Khomeinist Shia variety.
Democrats argue that we should leave Iraq immediately. As Hillary Clinton put it, the Iraq war is "Bush's War." The emphasis is wholly on righting what is posited as a past moral wrong. But such an argument does not address - nor are Democrats being asked to address by the MSM - the single most signficant question that we as a nation face today. It is one of imagination. What will happen to us and the world should we withdraw from Iraq in the face of the radical Islamic threat?
Our nation's premier Orientalist, the scholar Bernard Lewis, believes that a withdraw from Iraq posited by the Democrats would embolden the radical Islamists on a fundemental level, leading to "consequences--both for Islam and for America-- [that] will be deep, wide and lasting." Oliver North, looking at CIA assessments, views the effects of such a withdraw as leading to incalculable costs. And today, Dan Senor takes the Democrats to task for failure to listen to their own experts - the one's who originally argued against the war, but who now argue against leaving Iraq:Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."
Read the entire story here. To describe what is occurring between the Democrats and the MSM today as a failure to exercise imagination is a significant understatement. Our last "failure of imagination" led to 9-11. The stakes now are much higher. We have challenged the Islamists. If we back away now, it really is not hard to imagine the tremendous costs that will have to be paid by our country - costs that will dwarf the "blank check" needed to stablize Iraq.
And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."
A number of Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region's authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq.
A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.)
I heard similar warnings made repeatedly on a recent trip to almost every capital in the Persian Gulf--to some of America's closest allies and hosts of our military.
Likewise, withdrawal proponents cite career U.S. intelligence professionals as war skeptics, and not without basis. Yet here is what the U.S. intelligence community predicted in its National Intelligence Estimate early this year: "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. . . .
"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution: neighboring countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; al Qaida in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country--particularly al-Anbar province--to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion."
. . . John Burns of the New York Times . . . won Pulitzers for his coverage in Bosnia and Afghanistan before throwing himself full-bore into Iraq. This is how he described the stakes of withdrawal on "The Charlie Rose Show" recently:
"Friends of mine who are Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd--all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we're seeing now. It's really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq.
"It's difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world's flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there's complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless."
Earlier on the same program, Mr. Burns laid out his own version of Iraq Plus. "If you pull out now, and catastrophe ensues, then it is very likely that the United States would have to come back in circumstances which, of course, would be even less favorable, one might imagine, than the ones that now confront American troops here."
It would be one thing if only the architects of the Bush policy and their die-hard supporters opposed withdrawal. But four separate groups of knowledgeable critics--three of whom opposed going into Iraq--now describe the possible costs of withdrawal as very high.
If the Realists, neighboring Arab regimes, our intelligence community and some of the most knowledgeable reporters all say such a course could be disastrous, on what basis are the withdrawal advocates taking their position? . . .
And whom will the MSM and the Democrats blame then?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Democrats And The MSM Suffering A Failure Of Imagination
Monday, June 4, 2007
Iraq Rollup - The Good, The Bad, The Questionable, The Bull
The NYT is reporting that, in terms of pacification of Baghdad neighborhoods, the surge is "behind schedule" - though it is not clear from the article precisely what the counterinsurgency plan projected by this date. The NYT quotes ancedotal evidence that places blame for the slower then expected progress on Iraqi forces that have, at least in some units, been performing poorly and/or been infiltrated by insurgents working against the surge. The NYT does not address other recent information from the surge that shows very signficant strides in decreasing sectarian violence overall and in attritting some 20,000 enemy forces in just the past few months.
An Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate has released a video purporting to show the actual abduction of the three soldiers from the Tenth Mountain Division two weeks ago. They do not display the soldiers, but do show i.d. cards that appear authentic. They also claim on a website to have executed all three soldiers.
Bill Rogio and the WP are reporting on the latest Iranian mischief - supplying rockets to splinter groups of the Mahdi Army - as well as increased operational tempo targeting Mahdi Army leadership, likely aimed at limiting any attempt by the recently returned Sadr to reunify his forces and / or to reestablish his own authority. Rogio is also reporting on some important successes over the past days targeting al Qaeda throughout the country, including a notable success in Fallujah.
The NYT has an utterly inane op-ed claiming that Sadr, recently returned from hiding in Iran, is "An Enemy We Can Work With." The op-ed grossly overstates Sadr's power at this point, ignores his role as one of the primary engines of sectarian violence over the past two years, and ignores the fact that Sadr's goals for Iraq are very much at odds with the unified democracy that the U.S. has been spilling its blood for the past four years to establish. Urging the U.S. either to slow the operational tempo of attacks on Mahdi Army splinter groups or to otherwise engage Sadr diplomatically seem dangerously sophmoric.
The Democratic candidates for President continue their bidding war to see who can declare defeat in Iraq the quickest and loudest. At one point during their debate, Hillary Clinton referred to Iraq as "Bush's war," a phrase that seems to encapsulate the refusal of the left to address the ramifications of retreat from Iraq to anything beyond the 2008 elections.
The WP is raising the question of allowing illegal immigrants to join the U.S. military with a promise of citizenship at the end of service. This is not a bad idea. There are certainly historical antecedents, such as the ancient Roman military who used a similar method of recruitment in its provinces. The overriding issue has to be a vetting process to insure the loyalty of such recruits to the U.S. We have been burned badly on this before. For example, bin Laden's chief of security in the 90's and one of the al Qaeda's major operational assets was an ex-Green Beret Sgt. born in Egypt, Ali Mohammed.
The WP runs an utterly ridiculous piece on a U.S. interragator who claims to have tortured people by making them cold or having them listen to tapes all night long. It just so happens that this interragator, who now claims to be having attacks of conscience, is also a week shy of having a book released for publication. I invite everyone on all sides of the torture debate to compare the methods described in the WP article as torture with those that al Qaeda recommends in its own publications, and then decide for yourself whether this hand wringing is more then a bit idiotic.
