U.S. weakness opens doors
All over the world, scoundrels are ascendant, rising on a tide of American weakness. It makes for a perilous future.
President Bush bet his presidency — and America’s world leadership — on the war in Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though he bit off more than the American people were willing to chew.
The United States is failing in Iraq. Bush’s policy was repudiated by the American people in the last election. And now America’s enemies and rivals are pressing their advantage, including Iran, Syria, the Taliban, Sudan, Russia and Venezuela. We have yet to hear from Al Qaeda.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman had it right last week in saying that America has two choices in Iraq — a 10-month strategy of withdrawal or a 10-year strategy of “re-invasion” and rebuilding the country from the ground up, probably requiring 150,000 additional U.S. troops.
Along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the editors of the Weekly Standard and some formerly antiwar retired generals, I favor the latter option, but it’s obvious that the American people don’t.
Conceivably, they could be persuaded to support a true “victory” strategy if President Bush made a strong case for more troops, more money and more time. But he is not doing so.
On Nov. 7, the public rejected his old strategy, based on a limited U.S. “footprint” and training for Iraqi forces — a strategy that has not worked to produce a stable Iraq.
To the contrary, the savage enemies of stability and democracy — Sunni insurgents, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen and plain old criminals — have turned Iraq into a slaughterhouse. The Iraqi government is either unable or unwilling to stop what’s become a low-grade civil war.
Next week, the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., will issue a report that is likely to weaken Bush’s hand even further.
Advance indications are that it will call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, without a timetable, as well as regional negotiations involving Syria and Iran — countries that have been doing their utmost to destroy America’s position in the Middle East.
As evidence mounts that Bush and America are in a weakened position, America’s enemies are on the advance.
With maximum chutzpah, Iran’s radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, went so far as to write an open letter to the American people this week seeking to undermine Bush’s domestic position by denouncing “the many wars and calamities caused by the U.S. administration.”
Iran continues working on a nuclear arsenal, protected from international sanctions by Russia and China and Bush’s international weakness. Along with its ally, Syria, Iran is financing and arming the radical group Hezbollah, which is seeking to bring down the government of Lebanon.
Iraq’s progress was stopped by the destruction of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra on Feb. 22, 2006, apparently by Sunni jihadists, which set off the sectarian strife that is now spinning out of control. Progress was also stopped by the failure of Iraqi politicians to form a strong government.
Whether by choice or inability, Al Qaeda has not hit the United States since 2001. But it’s always been Osama bin Laden’s view that Americans don’t have the stomach for lengthy conflict. That seems to be proving true in Iraq. It would be surprising if he did not try to take advantage of America’s evident weakness.
I heard recently that one of America’s most distinguished historians had played a little game with a presidential candidate, asking him which five years were the most perilous in American history.
When the candidate offered the first years of the Republic, the Civil War, World War II or the Cold War, the historian supposedly said, “No, the next five years.”
The historian told me through an aide the story wasn’t true and that he doesn’t believe that the next five years are America’s most perilous. That’s good to hear, but I don’t agree.
Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.