The Federal Republican

Escalation

by Robert J. Romano

For the past week, the President and his Cabinet have been laying out to the Congress and the American people their new strategy for securing Iraq and achieving victory in the war on terror. The President has pledged to "crush these insurrections", referring to the sectarian strife in Baghdad, the expansion of militias in the capital city and surrounding areas, and the insurgency and al Qaeda presence in the Anbar province. America is committing over 20 thousand additional troops to the theatre, loosening up its rules of engagement, and apparently expanding its presence on the borders of Syria and Iran with the intention of destroying "the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq..." according to the President's January 10th address. The President has also recently ordered an additional carrier strike group to the region, expanding the U.S. naval presence there. The President, echoing the sentiments of the new Congressional majority in the U.S., has told Prime Minister Maliki that America's commitment in Iraq is not open-ended, and new benchmarks have been set for America to evaluate Iraq's progress towards security, political, and economic milestones. The pace of reconstruction will increase as well, with the President doubling the amount of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq.

The President has justified this escalation of America's efforts in Iraq in part based on an analysis of the costs of our failure, of which he outlines several. Amongst other evils, our failure in Iraq shall: 1) create a safe haven for terrorists in Iraq who, having toppled the government of Iraq, would be able to direct their attacks elsewhere; 2) embolden the growth of militias elsewhere in the region to pursue similar ends in other countries; 3) yield the strategic and economic asset of Iraq's oil wealth to the enemy; 4) embolden Iran to pursue nuclear weapons; 5) result in the loss of American credibility throughout the region and the world; and perhaps most importantly, 6) the advance of freedom in the Middle East would suffer a crippling blow, and the enemy's fascist vision would achieve an important victory. On the other hand, the benefits of our success include a free and democratic Iraq that can take care of itself and is an ally in the war on terror. In truth, success in Iraq and getting it right is the only option.

The U.S. shall shift the focus of its mission from training the Iraqi Security Forces, though that is still a primary function of the military mission, to protecting the Iraqi people and providing more immediate security to the areas where the killers have lurked, and presumably, eliminating the militias and insurgency once and for all. It is being suggested that the Iraqi government will not interfere with or criticize these new operations, indicating that Iraqi-American relations on this new strategy are very close and there is much agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki on the need to bring order to Baghdad in particular. The elimination of the rising power groups, the militiamen and insurgents, should offer a degree of protection in Baghdad unseen before to allow for civil control over the capital to take root. Iraq must lead this effort, and be out front in letting the militias know that their days are numbered.

This differs from a Democrat proposal offered by the leaders of the new majority, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, from a January 5^th letter to the President: “Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement.” The calls for a political settlement to the strife in Iraq makes it sound as if the killers were trying to achieve some sort of political compromise.

Instead, the competing Iranian and Syrian-backed militiamen and insurgents are playing a proxy war against each other to destabilize Baghdad and the surrounding areas by directing attacks against Sunni and Shi’a civilians, respectively, and which is geared to prompt a premature military withdrawal from Iraq. It appears clear that the enemy’s strategy is to use Iraq’s sectarian divisions to attempt to incite a civil war with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the Republic of Iraq. There is no political solution to this.

If by a political solution, the President’s critics mean to create a dialogue with Iran and Syria, certainly they must not believe that either terror state is ready to make concessions when they face sanctions and worse at the UN for their roles in destabilizing the region, sponsoring terrorism, and developing weapons of mass destruction. What incentive is there for these states to ensure peace and stability in Iraq or anywhere else in the region for that matter? Instead, they are directing attacks against our coalition forces, including the Iraqi Security Forces, and have an interest in carving Iraq up after the fall of the free government there. They have been sponsoring terrorism in the region for decades. We will achieve no more progress on the issue of Iraq with Syria and Iran than we will make on the issues of Lebanon, uranium enrichment, and Israel’s right to exist.

As for the so-called “phased redeployment” of troops, Democrats appear unwilling to aid the goal of securing Iraq in the short or longer terms. Iraq has not requested such a withdrawal any time soon, and instead Iraq has requested that forces remain in Iraq to aid the ISF and to provide stability. The majority certainly does not believe that we have an international obligation to maintain peace and stability in Iraq, else why do they propose a withdrawal or redeployment of military from Iraq against Iraq's own request for international aid from the United Nations? A premature withdrawal plays directly into the enemy's hands, and its constant support confirms that the opposition in the U.S. has no interest in bringing peace to the region. They oppose any confrontation of terror states in the Middle East. Their strategy is one of accommodation, a return to U.S. policies pre-9/11.

In truth, the new majority, and any accomplices that sell their souls to curry political favor will have the blood of all the innocent civilians that perish if a premature military withdrawal from Iraq occurs. While diplomacy has its place to work with our partners in the region, it is clear that the terms of peace in Iraq cannot be negotiated with Iran and Syria. It is clear that the terms of Lebanon’s independence cannot be negotiated with Syria, and cannot be guaranteed without foreign intervention. It is clear that Iran cannot be deterred diplomatically or economically not to pursue uranium enrichment. It is clear that the terms of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians cannot be reached while Islamist political parties are elected instead of disarmed. It is clear that foreign intervention is necessary throughout the region to reach a settlement to all of these disputes, and that an escalation of the war effort is the right prescription.

The President’s new policies effectively escalate the greater war on terrorism and tyranny, which is exactly what this author was hoping for. The President is not running for re-election, and public opinion will not determine the strategy and tactics that the coalition uses on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere in the war. If the opposition can offer nothing but criticism of achieving the goal of a free and stable Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, then their growing irrelevance to the issues surrounding foreign policy and the war on terror should be apparent for all to see. Any strategy in the war on terror that does not call for confronting state sponsors of terrorism is doomed to failure, and will not achieve the result we all desire. Peace will not come in this war at a table, it will come from bolstering our allies in the region to confront the terrorists and would-be tyrants that seek to overthrow them. We must not ignore this peril, this doom which faces us all. These fascist powers rising in the region are a threat to international peace and security, and must be confronted in the current offensive we are on.

The President is right to call for unity around a strategy for victory in Iraq and the greater war on terror, and his proposed bipartisan working group is important to settling the political climate in Washington. Critics in the majority, however, refuse to settle upon priorities in this war, or if we are at war at all. Do not expect there to be any votes to defund the war anytime soon. Their goal is not to end the war per se. If it was, they would be voting to defund it as soon as possible. Instead, they want the war and the constant beat of criticism against it to continue into the 2008 elections. That way, public discontent over the war will sweep the Democrats back into the White House. Since they have nothing to offer but a political strategy of victory, their proposals should be countered, rejected, or ignored. The President is right to ask for alternatives to his strategy for victory. What is unclear is if there is any acceptable alternative to victory.