|
Stopping the next war
By Patrick J. Buchanan
09/14/07 "WND" -- --- President Bush has won the Battle of
September.
When he turns over the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009, there will
likely be as many U.S. troops in Iraq as there were when
Congress was elected to bring them home in November 2006.
That is the meaning of Gen. Petraeus' recommendation, adopted by
President Bush, that 6,000 U.S. troops be home by Christmas and
the surge of 30,000 ended by April. Come November 2008, there
will likely still be 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Will this make America safer, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked. "I
don't know," answered the general. An honest answer. None of us
knows.
The general did know, however, that "a premature drawdown of our
forces would likely have devastating consequences."
So we are trapped, fighting a war in which "victory" is not
assured and perhaps not attainable – to avert a strategic
disaster and humanitarian catastrophe should we walk away.
While the posturing of the Democrats, using Petraeus as a foil
for their frustration and rage, was appalling, it is
understandable. For, as this writer warned the day Baghdad fell,
this time, we really "hit the tar baby."
What has the war cost? Going on 3,800 U.S. dead and 28,000
wounded. More than 100,000 Iraqis are dead; 2 million, including
most Christians and much of the professional class, have fled.
Millions have been ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods where
their families had lived for generations.
Once the most advanced country in the Arab world, Iraq has been
devastated and is coming apart. Sectarian, civil and tribal war
has broken out. Al-Qaida has a presence. And it is a fair
prediction that when the Americans depart, they will have fought
the longest war in their history, only to have replaced the
Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a Shia dictatorship
aligned with Iran.
Across the region, the situation appears bleak. In Pakistan, al-Qaida
has reconstituted itself. Bin Laden is sending out tapes. Gen.
Musharraf, who rules a nation of 170 million with atom bombs, is
floundering. The Taliban have made a comeback. As our allies
have left or are leaving Iraq, including the Brits, so, too, the
NATO allies in Afghanistan are wearying of the struggle.
In the United States, the war has taken its toll, as do all
no-win wars. With the cost of the two wars closing in on $1
trillion, we are as divided as we were during Korea and Vietnam.
As Truman fell to 23 percent after firing Gen. MacArthur, and
was drubbed in New Hampshire, and LBJ broken after Tet and
dropped out, Bush has seen his support fall from near 90 percent
at "Mission Accomplished" to near 30 percent. Approval of his
war leadership is virtually nonexistent.
Gen. Petraeus is trusted; his commander in chief is not.
To the cost of our dead and wounded must be added the
near-breaking of the U.S. Army, the estrangement of our allies
and the pandemic hatred of America across the Arab world.
As for the "cakewalk" crowd that accused opponents of the war of
lacking in patriotism, they never repented of their demagoguery.
Despite the pre-invasion propaganda they pumped out about
Saddam's awesome weapons and ties to 9/11, or their assurances
that U.S. troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, like
Paris in '44, and their prediction that a democracy would arise
in Iraq to which Islamic nations would look as a model, they
have never been called to account.
Now they are back with a new enemy for America to attack.
This time the target is Tehran – and once again, they have the
ear of this most ideological and unreflective of presidents.
Speaking to the American Legion, Bush used rhetoric against Iran
equal in bellicosity to anything he used on Iraq before
invading.
Iran "is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Iran
"funds terrorist groups like Hamas. ... Iran is sending arms to
the Taliban." Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology threatens to
put the Middle East and Gulf "under the shadow of a nuclear
holocaust."
As Bush ratchets up the rhetoric, Russia, China and, reportedly,
Germany are balking at new U.N. sanctions. That leaves Bush only
the military option if he wishes to effect the nuclear
castration of Iran. And Gen. Petraeus just provided him the
rationale.
"It is increasingly apparent," said Petraeus, "that Iran,
through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi
Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its
interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and
coalition forces in Iraq."
Petraeus' charge that Iran is fighting a "proxy war" against
America comports with the new War Party propaganda line that we
have been at war with Iran since 1979 and Bush needs no
authorization from Congress to fight it more aggressively.
Congress gave Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. Any chance
Congress will at least insist the administration come to Capitol
Hill to make the case for the next war, on Iran, before Bush
launches it? Probably not.
Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican
presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in
2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American
Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated
columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a
founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author
of seven books
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
