by Henry Lamb
January 5, 2004
Iraq will likely be a central theme in the 2004 election, especially now that the economy has fallen off the radar screen in the campaign headquarters of most of the presidential hopefuls. Iraq presents real problems, and they are not going away. How the problems are confronted will be the subject of endless political chatter for the next several months. The options are limited:
1. Bring the troops home (Howard Dean's solution).
2. Turn the mess over to the U.N. (preferred by the other Democratic candidates).
3. Help Iraq build a representative government (George Bush's solution).
The first option would assure a long and bloody battle among the warlords to determine who would build the new haven for the world's terrorists.
The second option would simply put the authority for deciding how to use U.S. troops and money into the hands of the U.N. Security Council. Without U.S. troops and money, the U.N. is impotent. Recurring visions of Mogadishu should prevent any serious consideration of this option.
This leaves George Bush's solution: Help Iraq build a representative government. This option has critics on both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum.
From the left, critics demand that the effort to rebuild Iraq be "internationalized." This criticism ignores the fact that the State Department says more than 60 nations are involved in the effort to some extent. To these critics, "internationalization," must mean U.N. approval. U.N. approval means nothing except relinquishing the authority to decide how U.S. dollars will be spent and how U.S. troops are to be deployed. There is nothing in the U.N.'s past performance to suggest that it can do a better job than is being done. In fact, the opposite is true.
Presidential hopefuls also like to say that President Bush has put U.S. soldiers in a "shooting gallery" when describing the continuing violence in Iraq. None, however, has pointed out that fewer americans have died in Baghdad from violence than in almost every american city of comparable size during the same period. Since the war began, far more americans have been murdered in the United States than in Iraq and afghanistan.
Hoping to avoid the "unpatriotic" label, presidential hopefuls are eager to say they support the troops, but ... Then, the "but" is followed by an avalanche of criticisms of the president, including the funds the president requested to help rebuild Iraq.
In an election year, these criticisms from the left are to be expected. Without them, campaign rhetoric would be limited to proposals to increase taxes and expand government programs and regulations.
Criticism from the right begins with the increased spending and expanded government programs and regulations the war on terror has already spawned. add the appearance of the Patriot act, which critics say severely erodes individual freedom and ignores privacy guarantees provided by the U.S. Constitution, and the gravity of the criticism begins to focus. Many conservatives believe that the U.S. has no constitutional authority to be in Iraq in the first place.
There is no shortage of criticism. as costly and bloody as the present course is, and will continue to be, it is far better than any of the alternatives offered by the critics.
Iraq is only a battle in the larger war on terror. If the U.S. abandons Iraq, terrorists will quickly fill the vacuum and claim victory. On the other hand, if the U.S. stays the course and helps Iraq achieve representative government and freedom from centuries of dictatorial slaughter, it will be a powerful example to both the terrorists and the victims of dictators in other terrorist-dominated countries.
It is not simply a coincidence, despite Democratic claims to the contrary, that Moammar Gadhafi began his overtures to the U.S. and Britain at about the same time U.S. troops were preparing to invade Iraq. The conversion of this country that admittedly gave WMD to terrorists demonstrates the power of the course of action President Bush has chosen. Other nations also will be influenced by what the U.S. does in Iraq.
The president's first responsibility is to defend the citizens of the United States. With the concurrence of Congress, the president has chosen the best possible course of action. Under the best of circumstances, it will be a long, costly and bloody campaign. americans who know that terrorism cannot be appeased, but must be defeated, will not be distracted by campaign rhetoric.
It will take a strong, determined leader to stay the course in this election year.