Following up on this post, let me call your attention to an article in last Monday’s New York Times. According to the authors, both of whom are at the Brookings Institution, things are changing for the better in Iraq. General Petraeus’s new strategy seems to be working. We may actually be able to succeed.
The question, however, is whether we will be allowed to. Do the opponents of what we are trying to do in Iraq have their minds so made up that they will not read or consider information that does not support what they have already decided?
I certainly would understand if the war’s opponents did not believe President Bush. He has done a terrible job in Iraq, and he has no credibility left, whether you oppose the war or support what we are trying to do there. But this article does not come from Bush, and General Petraeus’s report will not either.
Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear most of the national Democratic leaders are not interested in articles like the one in The New York Times. But the fact is that we went into Iraq for the right reasons.* And even though it has taken too long, if we now have a strategy that may work, we need to give it a try and follow through on it. We owe it to the Iraqi people. And we owe it to ourselves.
If we are defeated in Iraq, the next battle in the fight against Islamic totalitarianism will be harder. That would be bad enough if it happens because we have no choice. But it would be worse if it happens because we left Iraq even though we finally had a chance to succeed.
-------------------
* A short comment on why we went into Iraq: As Robert Tracinski says here and here, we did not go into Iraq to establish democracy. A lot of people say that was the reason, including unfortunately some people in the Bush Administration (though only after the invasion), but it is not true. We invaded Iraq because we had every reason to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (and would be getting more) and that Iraq either would use them against us and our interests directly or would give them to other groups to use.
It was Iraq’s continuing refusal to comply with United Nations resolutions with respect its weapons of mass destruction that gave substance to this fear. Over ten years, and in spite of countless United Nations resolutions, Iraq refused to comply with its agreements on WMD. We had no choice but to assume Iraq’s refusal to comply meant they had WMD and would use them.
Some argue that an invasion was not necessary, that we could have contained the danger through a continuation of the existing sanctions. It is a nice argument, but it would not have happened. Countries such as France and Russia were already arguing to end or loosen the sanctions. They were not going to be continued.
Once we invaded Iraq and the government collapsed, it was our responsibility to make sure the Iraqis got a decent government and to make sure the new government would not pick up where Saddam Hussein left off. This is where we did a lousy job for too long, but that may be changing. Things may be getting better in Iraq. We need to see if this new strategy will work so we can to meet our moral obligation to the Iraqi people and insure the next government of Iraq is not a danger to its neighbors or the world.
One final point: Those who most oppose the war in Iraq seem to be those who most support the United Nations. I could never understand how one could believe in the United Nations and yet let resolution after resolution go unenforced. If you believe in the United Nations, how can you let its resolutions be ignored and disrespected?
Recent Comments