The War in Iraq

In my view, the jury is still out on whether the war in Iraq will be judged a success or a failure for the United States. Historians and politicians will be debating the war for many years—perhaps decades. The outcome of the debate will depend on whether Iraq becomes a peaceful democratic society and an ally of the United States or whether it is taken over by terrorists or by another brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein.

There is no doubt the war has been unpopular. It has taken longer than anyone expected, and the cost has been enormous both in terms of dollars and lives lost. Barak Obama has brilliantly used his opposition to the war along with his outstanding oratory skills to propel himself, in a very short period of time, from being a state senator in Illinois to being the Democratic nominee for President of the United States and the likely next President of the United States. Obama’s initial opposition to the war was a major factor in his ability to win the Democratic nomination for President. During the nomination process, he constantly reminded voters that he opposed the war from the outset and that his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, initially supported the war before turning against it, as if this is all the proof we need that Obama is qualified to be our Commander-in-Chief.

There are two things that disturb me about the way most Democrats have conducted themselves during a time of war. First, unlike Obama, most leaders of the Democratic Party initially supported the war, but they have been trying to rewrite history ever since and have used the war as a weapon to gain political support and to undermine the President of the United States. Second, most people (including Obama) who believe the war was a mistake conclude that because it was a mistake we should withdraw our troops and end the war at the earliest possible time. In my view, it is imperative that we win the war even if, in hindsight, it was a mistake.

The comments made by leading Democrats prior to the war have been well documented. In order to save space, I will not repeat those comments here. If you would like to refresh your memory, however, please click on the following link to hear some of the pre-war comments made by leading Democrats in their own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESm6y9F2oII

In my opinion, the conduct of Democrats who initially supported the war but later turned against it has been disgraceful. During a time of war, it is more important than ever for the country to be united. Wars are ugly, and they do not always go well. We now know that the pre-war intelligence was wrong, but most Democrats saw the same intelligence as President Bush and drew the same conclusions. They now accuse the President of the United States of being a liar. It is also clear that there was a lack of planning prior to the war and that many mistakes were made in the conduct of the war. Nevertheless, the Democrats, in my view, have made a bad situation worse by using the problems we have experienced in Iraq to divide the country and discredit our Commander-in-Chief.

Many Democrats now view the war in Iraq as a distraction in the overall global war on terror, even though Osama bin Laden himself referred to Iraq as the “central front” in his efforts to bring down Western Civilization. By their constant criticism of the war, the Democrats not only have damaged the morale of our troops, but they also have made it much more difficult for us to win the war.

The terrorists in Iraq, like terrorists elsewhere, blend in with the general population. They do not identify themselves. They do not wear uniforms. They hide behind innocent women and children. We need the assistance of the Iraqi citizens to help us identify the terrorists and find the weapons they are using to kill innocent people. Can you blame the Iraqi citizens for being afraid to provide assistance to us when the leaders of a major political party in the United States are saying the “war is lost” (Harry Reid), President Bush “betrayed this country” (Al Gore), and we should withdraw our troops and end the war (almost all Democrats including Obama)? With comments like these, it is easy to understand why our country has been so divided and why our troops in Iraq have had so much difficulty gaining the support of the Iraqi people. It is also easy to understand why terrorists would conclude they could control Iraq simply by hanging on for a little longer and waiting for the United States to withdraw its troops.

I am not suggesting that Democrats who had legitimate objections to the way the war was being conducted should have remained silent. In my view, they should have made their objections known in a way that did not divide the country, damage the morale of our troops, and give aide and comfort to the enemy. Instead of constantly being in front of a camera, they should have gone to the Pentagon or the White House or both as many times as necessary for their views to be heard. They chose instead to undermine President Bush in order to gain political advantage. In doing so, they have caused great damage to the country and probably prolonged the war.

If the war was a mistake, does that mean we should admit defeat, withdraw our troops in disgrace, and leave behind a country in chaos? I don’t think so, but this is the strategy that Obama and most of his fellow Democrats have supported. They have wanted to cut off funding for our troops and to demand that our troops be withdrawn by an artificial deadline regardless of the conditions on the ground. With their intense opposition to the war, many Democrats have given me the impression they were rooting for the United States to lose the war in order to prove that President Bush was wrong in starting the war. Democrats argued for a change in strategy, but when Bush proposed the troop surge they opposed it. The only strategy advocated by most Democrats was to bring the troops home. Thankfully, President Bush had the backbone to pursue a new strategy—the troop surge—and the new strategy has clearly been successful. It has substantially reduced the level of violence in Iraq and led the way to political progress among the various factions in Iraq. Conditions in Iraq are still very fragile, but they are better now than at any time since the beginning of the war.

Amazingly, the recent success in Iraq has not changed Obama’s determination to withdraw our troops in accordance with an artificial time schedule. Obama has only reluctantly and indirectly admitted that the surge has been successful and that political progress has been made in Iraq. This past summer, Obama finally visited Iraq for the first time on a “fact finding” mission. In an incredible display of arrogance, however, he announced his policy for Iraq before leaving on his “fact finding” mission and before assessing the current situation there and hearing the recommendations of General Petraeus and other commanders in the field. Because of the success of the surge, Obama is now de-emphasizing Iraq in his speeches. When things were not going well in Iraq, however, Obama talked about Iraq all the time, but he never talked about winning the war. He only talked about ending it. He never talked about the consequences of losing the war. He only talked about ending it.

There are still major differences between McCain and Obama with regard to Iraq. McCain believes that a favorable outcome in Iraq is vital for American strategy in the Middle East and its overall efforts against terrorists. He would give General Petraeus and our other military leaders considerable latitude in determining when to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, advocates an arbitrary 16-month schedule for withdrawing American troops. Obama thinks his deadline would force the Iraqis to overcome their political differences and enable the United States to stabilize Iraq at far lower troop levels. McCain thinks Obama’s deadline would tie the hands of our commanders and undermine the political progress.

In a recent column about Iraq published in The Wall Street Journal, Robert McFarlane, a former National Security Adviser for President Reagan, said, “In short, Sen. Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis—something without lasting consequence.” McFarlane goes on to talk about the consequences of losing a war, including its effect on the “behavior of allies who begin to wonder whether the United States can still muster the means and will to uphold its obligations,” its effect “on the thinking within our military concerning how it was led, restricted, or abused in wartime,” its effect on “our body politic” and political stability, and its effect of discouraging our allies and encouraging our adversaries. McFarlane concluded his column by saying, “Losing is not an option, and no sensible leader should entertain the thought that it is.”

Because of the success of the surge, we now have the opportunity to win the war, to defeat the terrorists who have sought control of Iraq, to fulfill our commitments to the Iraqi people, and to leave behind a democratic, stable and secure government in the Middle East. I believe we will realize this opportunity if McCain is elected President. We may be able to realize this opportunity even if Obama becomes President but only because of the success of the surge that he opposed.