Why the Timeline if “The War is Lost”?
“I believe myself that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq…” Harry Reid (D-NV)
“I believe myself that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq…” Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Reid thinks of himself as one who speaks unpopular truths (See JINSA Report #640). But he isn’t and he’s not too smart either. Of course there is “extreme violence in Iraq” – there is a WAR on! Which begs the questions: WHO is responsible, WHAT do they want, HOW would it impact upon American and allied security in the future, and WHY don’t Sen. Reid and the timeline-pushers appear to care?
WHO: Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda in Iraq (Sunni radicals formerly aligned with tribal leaders in Anbar, but now on their own), former Ba’athists and the Saudis. If we lost, they won.
WHAT: Control of Iraq as a power/oil center and as part of the larger spread of Sunni or Shiite radicalism, whichever wins. They target civilians because they can and Sen. Reid will say, “There’s extreme violence. We’ve lost the war. Let’s get out of there.”
THE IMPACT: If Sen. Reid has his way and we pull out, Iraq will suffer ever more “extreme violence.” Radicals of all stripes will move in for what they see as the defining victory, and all will target the Iraqis who cast their lot with us. After the last spasm of “extreme violence,” (under Saddam, remember him?) coalition forces found nearly 400,000 bodies in mass graves, including Kurds killed with poison gas and the decimated Shiite Marsh Arabs. We have an obligation not to let such horror accompany or follow American forces in a place we tried to help.
Across the Middle East, North Africa and down into the Indian subcontinent countries and people will find themselves caught between extremists without hope of forging a moderate Arab or Muslim center. And without hope of American support.
WHY: Sen. Reid surely knows that if even half the negative scenarios come to pass America will be damaged for 50 years. He knows too that the President will veto the war strangulation bill and won’t be overridden. And he knows a timeline for the American troop presence in Iraq is a bad idea – Gen. Petraeus, who should be the authority on this, has said so – having demanded one anyhow is the definition of playing politics with our troops in hopes of scoring political points against the President. Why?
Because he could. But he shouldn’t have.
There will be no legislated timeline and the money will come. That is the truth, unpopular as it may be among supporters of Sen. Reid. Real bravery would have him tell it to those who don’t want to hear it and who don’t care if America loses as long as the President does. Real bravery would have him do his best to support the new commander in the field, the new Defense Secretary and the new counterinsurgency – to support our troops in the field – as the battle for Iraq’s future, and ours, continues.
Real bravery would have him hope we win.