December 4, 2005
Desperate Arguments For Staying the Course

By Steve Chapman

When President Bush went to the Naval Academy the other day, he spoke in front of a sign that could have been an answer on "Jeopardy." It had the words "Plan for Victory." The question: What did the Bush administration fail to do when it invaded Iraq?

Back then, his slogan could have been "Assume Victory." Expecting a quick and conclusive triumph, the administration blithely figured we would get out as quickly as we got in. Bad guess.

The plan for victory that Bush laid out sounds pretty much like what he has been promising to do ever since his original non-plan turned out to be a bust. We will build democratic institutions, train Iraqi forces, combat the insurgents and eventually achieve a victory that will let American troops come home.

The problem is that so far, the plan has not worked -- if working means containing the damage inflicted by the enemy or establishing stability in Iraq. But the promise of what we will accomplish in Iraq is no longer the centerpiece of the administration's case.

By now, it's obvious that the best we can hope for is to leave the country with a semi-stable government, democratic or not, that will take over the fight so we can excuse ourselves. So the White House has largely shifted its argument to a negative one: Whatever the costs of staying, the consequences of leaving would be worse. Keeping our troops in Iraq may not bring success, but it staves off catastrophe.

The president made a version of this argument in Annapolis, suggesting that it's something of a good thing for our troops to come under terrorist attack in Iraq. "If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle," he declared. "They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders."

But if this is true, why would we ever want to leave? If the enemy's main goal is to kill Americans, turning the war over to Iraqi forces won't solve the problem. On the contrary, it will leave the insurgents no choice but to come after us right here at home.

By this logic, the only sensible thing to do is stay in Iraq until we kill them all. No serious person thinks that is going to happen anytime soon. If Bush believes what he says, he should be preparing us all to stick it out for another decade -- which is how long our commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, expects the insurgency to last.

Bush prefers not to admit that the only reason Iraq is a terrorist hotbed is that we invaded and fostered chaos. Not only have foreigners come into Iraq with the aspiration of killing Americans, but Iraqis have joined the jihad as well. Some have even left Iraq to advance the cause -- such as the ones who carried out attacks in Jordan last month.

Daniel Benjamin, co-author of the new book "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right," says, "The 'flypaper' theory is fine if the number of terrorists is finite." In fact, our presence is obviously inflaming anti-Americanism and creating more terrorists, in Iraq and elsewhere.

An equally lame argument for staying comes from Dick Cheney. He says that the terrorists hit the American homeland Sept. 11, 2001, because our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia indicated "they could strike us with impunity." If we leave Iraq, he warns, these enemies will be emboldened once again.

What is he leaving out? Oh yes, our invasion of Afghanistan, which proved once and for all that they cannot strike the American homeland with impunity. That should give pause to any terrorists who think they can use Iraq as a base to hit New York or Washington. But in Cheney's strange view of the world, Afghanistan counts for nothing with our enemies.

Leaving Iraq, he insists, would tell the bad guys they can attack us at home. But leaving Iraq after invading Afghanistan would actually tell them something very different: You may get away with attacking Americans in Iraq, but you can't get away with attacking Americans in America. So if we leave Iraq, they will have no good options for attacking us.

At this point, the administration's arguments have the ring of desperation. They're the equivalent of telling a man who picks up a beehive and gets stung by dozens of bees that whatever he does, he must not let go of the hive.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate

Steve Chapman

Author Archive
Email Author
Print This Article
Send Article To a Friend

More Commentary
Oil's Law of Unintended Effects - George Will
Competing Messages on Immigration - R. Navarrette
Global Cool - David Warren

More From Steve Chapman
Punishing Success in the Oil Business
When Will We Get a Look Inside the Supreme Crt?
Your Home May Still Be Your Castle