A moment of truth
Given the demonstrable progress made by General Petraeus and the forces under his command implementing the surge counterinsurgency strategy over the past month, I find the Democratic compulsion to mandate our defeat in Iraq incomprehensible and any Republican assistance lent to the Democrats' effort contemptible. Pete Hegseth is a native of Forest Lake, Minnesota and a Princeton alumnus who served as an officer in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division. Pete serves in the New Jersey National Guard and is executive director of Vets for Freedom. We have featured Pete's messages and letters several times over the past two years. Today's Wall Street Journal publishes Pete's "Give the surge a chance" (subscribers only, I think). Pete writes:
This week, Democrats on Capitol Hill are expected to present several different bills meant to undermine the war in Iraq. I fear that it will be difficult for Americans to discern the facts, as members on the Hill (including some Republicans) will revisit past failures and lament unfortunate losses rather than undertake a serious critique of the new counterinsurgency strategy.In his Web-only special post today, Bill Kristol urges the White House to stand firm: "Moment of truth for the President." Bill writes:Why? Because for some members of Congress, there is a growing fear that Gen. David Petraeus just might have a winning strategy in Iraq.
Despite four years of failed policy, the strategy we have in Iraq today is sound, both in principle and in practice, as my combat tour in Iraq confirmed. Gen. Petraeus is bringing safety and stability to Baghdad and Anbar Province, putting insurgents on the run. Now it's a question of whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and wobbly Republicans will give him the time and resources he needs. So, before the debate reconvenes, I thought a brief refutation of the top four Iraq falsehoods would be instructive:
• Falsehood No. 1: The "surge" is already a failure.
Fact: The surge is just beginning. All of the brigades Gen. Petraeus requested have only been in place since mid-June and already there are promising indicators. Since January, sectarian murders are substantially down, arms caches are being found at three times the rate of last year and young Sunnis and Shiites are joining the Iraqi security forces in record numbers.***
• Falsehood No. 4: U.S. troops are not fighting an enemy in Iraq, just policing a "civil war."
Fact: America's enemies are invested in our defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri say they want to "expel the Americans from Iraq" and establish a "caliphate" to "extend the jihad to the secular countries neighboring Iraq." These killers are intent on spreading their violent ideology, and believe stoking sectarian violence is the best way to achieve their goals. Al Qaeda may only make up 10% of the insurgency in Iraq, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for in lethality. Gen. Petraeus has said that "80 to 90% of suicide bombers are foreign fighters," and by neutralizing them, we could stomp out the low-level civil war.
In light of these facts, our country faces an important decision: listen to David Petraeus and the generals in Iraq, who believe we finally have a winning strategy that will take time to execute, or bow to the political demands of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are more interested in avoiding defeat in their home districts than defeating al Qaeda & Co. in Iraq.
Gen. Petraeus promised a candid report in September. Until then, for the same senators who unanimously confirmed him and his counterinsurgency strategy in January to undercut his efforts is extremely irresponsible, and exposes how quickly war-time leadership can transform into election-season pandering.
The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards.I find it hard to believe that President Bush will choose to fold rather than fight at the risk of adding his own personal ignominy to ignominious defeat.Here's what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don't twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats' position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended. The Democrats are hoping the president will break and run. They will not allow him a dignified retreat or welcome him with compromise. They will spring to finish him off completely. It doesn't matter what the president's motives are. Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he's gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now--and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president.
To comment on this post, go here.
