Viet Nam, Iraq, and the Future

I just read a Michael Goodwin column on the political fallout of the Iraq War. Goodwin suggests that it is time for GOP elder statesmen to go to President Bush and convince him that his Iraq policy must change. Goodwin analogized the situation to Barry Goldwater going to President Nixon to tell him that his support was gone and that resignation was the only option.

Obviously, the analogy isn't perfect. Bush is not really likely to be impeached. But it has become clear that America is rapidly losing the will to carry on in Iraq (if it hasn't gone so already).

What I find so troubling is the craven nature of our current political "leaders". I truly believe that the majority of members of Congress have always based their votes and public stance regarding Iraq on public opinion, rather than honest beliefs. Mrs. Clinton perhaps best typifies this mentality. Like many Democrats, she did not really support the Iraq War, but she voted for it because she feared a vote against it would be seen as weakness on terror and used against her. Now, with the public overwhelmingly turning against the war, she fears that her Presidential ambitions will be hurt unless she repudiates her original vote.

But just what are Mrs. Clinton and the others who oppose the President's Iraq policy specifically opposed to? There has been a merging of the concepts of strategy and tactics. President Bush's strategy has been to confront terrorists and their state sponsors. It was that strategy that led to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The tactics of the war, especially in Iraq, have been the problem. The President has, once again, sent our troops into a fight with hands tied behind their backs. I have previously criticized the Administration's tactical failures including letting Sadr hide out in a mosque and pulling back from Fallujah without finishing the job. It amazes me that leaders with an adult recollection of Viet Nam could have made the same mistakes again. Clearly, when our troops are allowed to fight they prevail. When we allow political considerations to prevail over military judgment we do not.

My question is: Do the President's opponents think his strategy is wrong or is it his tactics they reject? If the strategy is correct, then Mrs. Clinton and the others are wrong to repudiate their initial vote of support. Those who want to pull out of Iraq are also wrong. The proper response would be to change the tactics to those with a better chance of success. Most likely, that would mean a large influx of troops.

Oh, yes, but then there's that problem that the public doesn't support the war anymore. Oh well, then, never mind if the best course is to confront radical Islamists in the Middle East. The public has been convinced that the whole thing is a bad idea. There is no public support for the massive troop increase which would be needed to change things. The men and women we lost there appear to have been sacrificed in vain.

I have always believed that the war in Iraq was a vital and proper part of the greater war against Islamist radicals. Liberals in government and the media have always opposed the war as part of their general animosity towards George Bush. The fact that WMD were never found, the constant emphasis on death counts rather than objectives, and the everyday reporting of the war in the least favorable light possible, slowly but inexorably eroded public support for the war. These Bush opponents have done their work too well, however. Now the public has been convinced that the whole war on terror is unnecessary, 9/11, an aberration,not part of a long and continuing clash of civilizations.

The biggest question I now have is whether the "lessons" the country has learned in Viet Nam and Iraq will allow us to ever fight a difficult battle again? Have we reached the point where nothing is worth a sacrifice? Will we now shrink from the responsibility to protect our citizens by promoting a safer world? Are we heading into a period of ostrich-like isolationism? It seems to me that the "pull out now" forces believe we can hide from the world.

We can run from Iraq so that pandering politicians can bolster their run for President. I doubt, however, that we can hide from the tide of Islamic radicalism which is growing larger and bolder with every new sign of our weakness.