Calls for Retreat in the Midst of Victory

by Robert J. Romano

December 9th, 2005

        As the Iraqi people prepare for their December 15th elections, the first since the ratification of the new Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, and which shall fill 275 seats for the Council of Representatives, it comes in the midst of a political debate here in America over our role in Iraq in which a minority of representatives in Congress are calling for an "immediate redeployment" of all U.S. forces out of Iraq.  In particular, Democrat Representative John Murtha wants troops out of Iraq within six months, which is deemed the quickest that troops could conceivably be pulled out.  This of course differs from President Bush's strategic vision for our mission in Iraq, which has recently been outlined in a 38-page document, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.  In this strategy, victory is defined in the short, medium, and longer terms, the rationale for why our strategy for victory must be based on meeting very specific conditions is outlined, the benefits of victory and the dangers of failure are enumerated, the vital national security interests at stake are laid out, our road to success is broken up into "mutually-reinforcing" tracks of political, security, and economic progress, and a realistic assessment of the duration of the multinational forces' (MNF) mission is offered, deliberately rejecting any artificial timeline for the withdrawal of forces to be required under law, such as with Representative Murtha's proposed resolution.  It is important that while our forces are in harm's way securing a free Iraq, that time limits not be set up by politicians to complete that mission.  Instead, our representatives must lead the American people and urge patience while the delicate work of establishing a democratic republic is completed.  Calls for premature withdrawal preempt the election Iraq's leaders, who may in all likelihood request the continued presence of MNF, and undermine the resolve of the American people to see through the mission to victory.

        National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is a comprehensive approach to stabilizing Iraq not only by MNF in the short term but also ultimately by fully constituted Iraqi security forces, ensuring a free government is not only established but survives in the long term, and building up the Iraqi economy which for decades suffered under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and can attract foreign investment for posterity.  It is a strategy which deserves our support, since it is not enough to merely support the troops in harm's way, but is imperative that we also support their mission.  It is of course appropriate to question the strategy, and clearly there will be differences of opinion amongst our representatives as to the best way to proceed towards victory in Iraq.  For those who are critics of the strategy, it will be necessary for alternatives to be offered, since if we should be doing something differently, there are lives on the line, and course corrections would be necessary in the immediate future.  It is fallacious, and irresponsible, however, to deceive the American people with criticisms of the adoption and execution of our strategy without any compelling alternatives, to lie about the reasons the war on terror was expanded into Iraq, and to dismiss the premise of victory in Iraq in the first place.

        Recently, the DNC's National Chairman, Howard Dean, stated on a radio program, "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that, unfortunately, is just plain wrong.  I've seen this before in my life and it cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers and I don't want to go down that road again..." In comparing the war on terror in Iraq to the Vietnam War, Dean dismisses the premise of victory in Iraq in the first place.  Indeed, Chairman Dean dismisses every single critical assessment made by the government: that Iraq is the central front in the wider war on terrorism, that victory in Iraq is critical to our national security and international peace and stability, that immediate withdrawal or redeployment of MNF would be a strategic blunder of tremendous geopolitical significance, etc.  Thus, it is not surprising that the Chairman, who disagrees with the idea that victory in Iraq is even necessary in the wider war on terror, would think that victory in Iraq is even possible.  In backing off these statements, Dean has more recently on CNN "clarified" what he really meant: "We can only win the war, which we have to win, if we change our strategy dramatically. The Democrats are coalescing around a very different strategy. We hope the President will join us..." And what does that strategy entail? Why, redeployment, or withdrawal out of Iraq!

        To be fair, Dean is being consistent.  He does not view Iraq as the central front in the war on terror, so it would only make sense that he would call for troops to be pulled out of Iraq.  When he talked about "the war" to CNN, he meant the war on terrorism.  And when he talked about "this war" on the radio program, he meant the war in Iraq.  So, again, much like in 2004, politicians are debating whether or not Iraq is a front in the war on terrorism at all.  Previously, this author has agreed with political commentator Bill Kristol's assessment that the election of 2004 would be a referendum on whether Iraq was integral to the war on terror, and the President's reelection would signal the American people's agreement with this premise.  In the very least, the determination that our representatives make about this key question would shape much of our strategic posture in the Middle East and beyond, since assuming they determine that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, troops should remain; and if they determine that it is not, then they'd be agreeing with Dean and the Democrats, and presumably would want troops elsewhere to fight terrorists.  Afghanistan seems to be their favored target.  But, hasn't the leadership of al Qaeda already fled Afghanistan? For instance, did not the al Qaeda associate, al Zarqawi, specifically flee Afghanistan to Iraq? Are the Democrats saying there are no terrorists in Iraq?

        This is a debate in which the Democrats are destined to lose, considering the realities on the ground in Iraq, where terrorist bombings are ending the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and where the Hussein regime was indeed a state sponsor of terrorism, and it is a debate in which the political and partisan component cannot, regrettably, be removed.  Even National Strategy acknowledges that the "continued support of the American people" helps to establish the "conditions for victory..." in Iraq (pp. 11).  Bolstering support amongst the American people for the mission in Iraq must be done in the political context, and it would be a mistake for Republican representatives to ignore the need for public support in the war effort.  Iraq is essential to victory in the wider war on terror and tyranny, as it will provide a model in the greater Middle East and beyond for freedom and democracy, and demonstrate that there is another way aside from what the vicious ideology of al Qaeda offers. 

        Ultimately, it is the Iraqi people, their elected representatives, and their brave, volunteer forces in Iraq that will defeat the enemy in Iraq.  Perhaps we should ask them if they believe that Iraq is a front in the wider war on terrorism? Additionally, pursuant to our international obligations enumerated in UN Security Council Resolutions, we have a responsibility to maintain peace and stability inside of Iraq for the time being.  We have a duty to our new friends in Iraq, and as we consider our role there over the immediate future (say, the next six months), we must carefully assess what Iraq requires from the international community in the way of providing security.  If they require our help, do we not have a moral and legal obligation to help? Perhaps critics of the war effort have taken their rhetoric too far in an effort add logic to their claims that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism.  History denies their premise, and dismisses their logic, and in an effort to ensure victory in the war, it is the people of America who must, by way of free elections, remove representatives from office who would endanger our national security and international peace and stability by facilitating a premature withdrawal of military forces from Iraq before the job is done.  Obviously, we the people have a role to play as well in ensuring victory, and it is appropriate for our representatives in Washington to continue to force this debate on Capitol Hill, so that we will know which of them favor victory, and which ones favor retreat.  If the opposition cannot even acknowledge that Iraq is a front in the war on terror, they do not deserve their offices.  On the eve of the coalition and the Iraqi people's great victory, we must not be advocating for a retreat, for that would most assuredly be a tremendous setback in the greater war on terror, and could even make victory ultimately impossible.