ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 31, 2005

WASHINGTON - - While this might seem like a good time to bring some of our National Guard troops home from Iraq to help out in our own devastated Gulf Coast, that is not going to happen.

There are at least two reasons:

First, we can't spare them from Iraq. Our troops are stretched to the limit doing what our military never wanted to do: engage in a hostile occupation of a foreign country for a prolonged period of time.

Even though you may have heard some spin about large numbers of soldiers and Marines coming home soon, in fact our military is preparing to send more troops to Iraq in December in anticipation of new elections and, therefore, new insurgent attacks.

The second reason we can't bring troops home at this time is because the Bush administration has come up with a new reason for staying there.

Our war aims in Iraq have been flexible - - if not downright fluid - - from the very beginning. So we should expect more aims, reasons and justifications as the occupation goes on and the poll numbers continue to fall.

Not only have Bush's own poll numbers hit record lows in poll after poll in August, but a new poll by Gallup has produced some an intriguing result.

Instead of asking people a number of questions, the pollsters asked just one: "If you could talk with President Bush for 15 minutes about the situation in Iraq, what would you, personally, advise him to do?"

The open-ended responses were recorded verbatim on a computer and then Gallup assigned each answer to a broad category.

The results were:

Pull the troops out and come home/end it…..41 percent.

Finish what was started/be more aggressive…..18 percent

Doing a good job/continue with your actions….7 percent

The other results trailed down from there, with the lowest getting less than .05 percent: Improve the homeland security.

What is also interesting is the breakdown of those who responded that we should come home/end it. Almost a quarter of those responders were Republicans (23 percent), which would be a bad sign for the Republican Party as it heads into Congressional elections next year, except that few Democrats offer any alternatives to the war.

This public opposition and unease about the war, however, have meant our justifications for it have constantly changed.

First we were invading in order to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, then it was to topple an evil dictator who had cooperated with the 9/11 terrorists, then it was to prevent Iraq from becoming an international breeding ground for more terrorism and then it was to create a democracy in Iraq that would serve as an example for the entire Middle East, where democracies are in extremely short supply.

That last one - - democracy building - - has run into some problems recently as we discover that some Iraqis have a different concept of democracy for their country (a religious state ruled by the laws of Islam and limiting the rights of women ) than we do.

So a need new reason for staying in Iraq was needed and the administration has come up with one:

To show we have guts.

Like most things out of the White House this was carefully "rolled out."

First came a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney on Aug. 18, who told a convention of Purple Heart recipients in Springfield, Mo., that our enemies "believe that America will lose our nerve and let down our guard."

Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 29 told several hundred soldiers at the Army's National Training Center in Fort Irwin, Calif., "The real battle we're fighting is the test of wills."

Finally, on Aug. 30, President Bush said in a speech at the San Diego Naval Air Station North Island that the war was "a test of American credibility and resolve" and that the insurgents are trying to "break our will."

In other words the war is about fighting the war.

Forget about loftier goals or measuring sticks. We will continue to fight to prove to the enemy that we will continue to fight.

This is a very risky war aim, however, because it means the enemy gets to set our policy: We must prove to the insurgents that we have the will, the nerve, the resolve, the sheer guts to fight on.

Which may be exactly what the enemy wants.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 29, 2005

WASHINGTON - - In 1979, I was a judge at the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City.

My fellow judges included Gavin McLeod, who was the captain on "The Love Boat" and had played Murray Slaughter on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," Jerry Vale, a famous singer (who got all the judges in to see his pal Frank Sinatra, who was playing in Atlantic City) and Janet Langhart, who was then a prominent TV newsperson (and would later marry Secretary of Defense William Cohen.)

In other words: What was I doing there?

I still don't know. Maybe they had me confused with Roger Ebert. Or Roy Rogers. In any case, they asked me if I wanted to be a judge and I jumped at it.

At the time, the pageant was still a fairly big deal. Some 70 million Americans watched it that year. Last year, ABC dropped the show after only 9.8 million people tuned in, an all-time low.

And it was announced a few days ago that after 84 years, the Miss America pageant will leave Atlantic City in an attempt to revitalize itself. Former pageant executive Leonard Horn told a reporter, "They have no allegiance to Atlantic City whatsoever, other than nostalgia, and that doesn't pay the bills."

Although I haven't watched the show in years, I still feel nostalgic about it.

When I got to Atlantic City to be a judge, the organizers were shocked that I had not brought (and, in fact, did not own) a tuxedo.

On the night of the TV broadcast, Bert Parks would introduce each judge and you had to stand up and wave to the camera. And you had to have a tuxedo, apparently, to do that.

Gavin MacLeod owned several. Jerry Vale, I think, had been born in one.

So a pageant official drove me up and down the gritty side streets of Atlantic City that run parallel to the Boardwalk until we found a tuxedo shop. My rented tux did not fit very well and this added to my nervousness about the wave.

On the night of the pageant, MacLeod, a very nice guy, sat next to me in the judge's pit as we waited in the darkness for the show to begin.

"A left- or right-handed wave?" I asked him. "Wave the hand, the arm, what?" There were tiny beads of sweat on my forehead.

"I think," MacLeod said, looking at me, "that you need a pocket handkerchief!" And he whipped from his own breast pocket this incredibly beautiful, scarlet, Italian silk handkerchief and expertly tucked it into my own pocket.

I looked down at it. I felt transformed. And when it came my turn to wave, I calmly stood and did it. I have no idea if I did it left-handed or right-handed (I am pretty sure I used one or the other), but when I sat down MacLeod leaned over and gave me a big kiss on my forehead.

"A star," he said, "is born."

He refused to let me give the handkerchief back, and I have it still. Every year, I wear it to the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, an event far more tedious than the Miss America pageant.

It is a little hard to explain what the pageant once meant to some people, but it meant a lot. So I now repeat one of my favorite, true stories:

On one of the preliminary nights of the pageant I was waiting for a hotel elevator with my big purple judge's badge fastened to my suit.

And I noticed I was standing next to an American legend, a man whose fame had been so great he had become a symbol for an entire era. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a young man approach him for an autograph.

He turned to give it, only to see the young man walk past him and stop in front of me.

"So whaddya think of Miss New Jersey?" the young man asked. "She gotta chance?"

The elevator came as I was making some neutral response.

And as the doors closed on him, I saw Joe DiMaggio smile a knowing smile.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 24, 2005

WASHINGTON - - Leave it to Pat Robertson to give assassination a bad name.

The religious broadcaster recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is more friendly with Fidel Castro than he is with George W. Bush.

That is no reason to whack the guy, however. We do get 15 percent of our oil imports from Venezuela.

And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the State Department were quick to distance themselves from Robertson's statements.

"Our department doesn't do that kind of thing," Rumsfeld said. "It's against the law."

The fact is, however, that the U.S. "law" banning assassination is no law and no ban at all.

It is a 1976 presidential order that can be set aside by any president.

Gerald Ford drew it up after revelations that the United States had repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro. (The United States also was probably involved in the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Binh Diem in 1963.)

But as long as that 1976 presidential order is in effect, we don't try to assassinate world leaders, right?

Wrong.

After a Berlin nightclub bombing in 1986 in which U.S. soldiers were killed, President Reagan unleashed eight F-111 bombers against Libyan President Moammar Kadafi's personal compound. Although the planes dropped 64,000 tons of explosives, Kadafi escaped harm (though we did kill his 15-month-old daughter.)

The Reagan administration denied this was an assassination attempt, however.

According to published reports, "Administration legal counselors advised that the strike could be justified as self-defense and preemptive military attack. And deaths, the legal analysis held - - even the death of the head of state - - could not be considered political assassination."

In other words assassination is whatever we say it is.

Take Osama bin Laden. Please.

According to the Washington Post, President Bush signed a "finding" shortly after Sept. 11, 2001 telling the CIA to use "lethal covert operations" to kill Osama bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda.

Why would that not be an attempt at assassination?

Because "the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime" and does not apply to "action against terrorists," according to the article.

In reality, should the United States want to assassinate somebody, all the president has to do is set aside the 1976 presidential order and go do it.

Or, all we have to do is define the assassination as "self defense" or define the target as a "terrorist."

The appeal of assassination is that it is much cheaper than launching a war.

The drawback is that killing one bad guy rarely works.

There are usually more bad guys to take his place.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 22, 2005

WASHINGTON - - Although Vice President Cheney says we must stay in Iraq to show the enemy we have not "lost our nerve," at least two possible candidates for president in 2008 say Iraq is not a matter of losing nerve but losing lives.

On the Republican side, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Sunday: "We should start figuring out how we get out of there."

Speaking on ABC's "This Week", he said that "stay the course" is not a policy and "we're not winning."

Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran said "we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

And on the Democratic side, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, called Thursday for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2006.

Feingold, who, like Hagel, is exploring a run for the presidency in 2008, told me the day before: "I believe I am the first senator (to set a deadline.) It says: Here is the date by which we ought to finish the mission."

(In January of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., proposed withdrawing 12,000 U.S. troops from Iraq "immediately" and the rest "as early as possible in 2006.")

While polls indicate widespread discontent in this country over President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, few lawmakers have offered any real alternative to Bush's policy of "staying the course."

Even this June, when Feingold introduced a resolution in Senate that called on President Bush to clarify the mission in Iraq and lay out "a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission," Feingold did not call for a deadline for withdrawing troops.

Back then, Feingold said he was not dictating "deadlines or dates certain…because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders."

Now, however, Feingold has changed his mind and believes a deadline is necessary.

"I offered a resolution and tried to engage colleagues and asked the president to give us a vision," he told me. "The president has simply refused to give us a mission or timeframe to bring the troops home."

Feingold also said that many within his own party are afraid of demanding a withdrawal of troops from Iraq for fear of being branded unpatriotic or anti-military.

"I call what I am doing breaking the taboo," Feingold said. "The senators have been intimidated and are not talking about a timeframe. We have to make it safe to go in the water and discuss this. A person shouldn't be accused of not supporting troops just because we want some clarity on our mission in Iraq."

While Feingold is aware some will accuse him of playing into the hands of the insurgents and strengthening terrorism, he says the Iraq war has made America less and not more safe.

"The president's policy in Iraq has played into the hands of the terrorists," he said. "Iraq is now the principle training ground for terrorists."

While Feingold is proposing a deadline for American troop withdrawal, he says it can be a flexible deadline.

"It's a target date," he said. "If we believe we need a little more time we may have to continue (in Iraq.)

Feingold outlined three possibilities:

"One, we achieve our goals in the timeframe and we are able to bring our troops home.

"Two, we make progress but not quite as fast as hoped and we might need flexibility.

"Or three, things might get much worse and we might decide that we simply can't achieve our goals. But at least a timeframe measures how we are doing."

Sunday, the Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told the Associated Pres that in a worst-case scenario the Army is planning to keep our current troop level in Iraq - - over 100,000 men and women - - until 2009.

Feingold said: "What we have now is sort of directionless policy with no real sense of how this ends. A deadline will help us a great deal to stabilize the situation in Iraq."

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 17, 2005

SIMON SAYS:
If you remember when suits came with two pairs of trousers, you're a lot older than me.

You need to own a Wonder Bar. No, not the kind you eat, the kind you pry things and whack things with.

Do people with personal shredders really think anybody cares about their garbage?

I'll bet you don't know how high your speedometer goes. Mine goes to 160 mph. Why do auto-makers do that? Whom do they think they are kidding? My car couldn't get to 160 mph with a 100 mph tailwind.

How come only high school teachers and drug dealers understand the metric system? (A gram, by the way, is about the weight of a paperclip. Or so I am told.)

I was wondering why computers printers had gotten so cheap -- some are now, essentially, free -- when a friend told me: "They are giving you the printer in order to hook you on the cartridges." It seems to me King Gillette did the same thing with safety razors and blades about a hundred years ago.

This is part of a national movement: In your cell phone, create an entry named "Ice", which stands for In Case of Emergency. Then enter the number of the person you would want called in emergencies. Law enforcement agents or emergency medical personnel can then check your cell phone if you are in an accident and can't communicate.

Remind me again: At the beach, what was the enjoyment of being buried in the sand?

Judging by its trailer, "The Constant Gardener" looks like it might really be good. The book by John LeCarre was excellent.

Whatever happened to all those Rubik's Cubes? Are they in landfills someplace? (And if you actually got all the colors to line up properly, there may be something wrong with you.)

My wife recently bought a food scale (no, I don't know why) and so now I weigh all sorts of stuff. Here is a sample:
September issue of Vanity Fair magazine: 1 pound 13 ounces.
U.S. News & World Report baseball cap: 2.4 ounces.
IPod 20gb: 5.5 ounces.
Kalamata olive (with pit): .15 ounces
Can of Pepsi: 13.65 ounces.
McDonald's Quarter Pounder: No result. I ate it on the way home to weigh it.

I don't think I have ever seen a hospital room on TV or in a movie that looks like a real hospital room.

Things I learned by watching television: Hallmark adds a sweetener to the glue on the envelopes of its greeting cards so it tastes better when you lick it. It's lo-cal, though: only about a half-calorie per card.

Things I learned by watching the movies: Nicole Kidman is left-handed.

How old does a kid have to be before you can swear in front of him?

I admire the devil-may-care attitude of people who have a cell phone and no home phone.

The chief contribution that Cindy Sheehan has made by camping outside George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas is to demonstrate there actually is an anti-war movement in this country.

If you need a reason to hate teenagers watch "My Super Sweet Sixteen" on MTV.

Mary Janes (the kind you eat) are just as good as they ever were.

It would be hard to find a better writer than Charles Baxter.

I admire anybody who can row a boat in a straight line.

Liberals are such wimps. They fell all over each other to denounce the NARAL Pro-Choice America ad attacking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. But how many conservatives denounced those Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads attacking John Kerry?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 15, 2005

WASHINGTON - - For George Bush, August may turn out to be the cruelest month.

First there is the matter of Cindy Sheehan. On Aug. 6, Ms. Sheehan showed up outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas demanding the president come out and talk to her about the death of her son in Iraq. So far, he has refused.

Yes, she already has met once with the president. Yes, there might be some truth to the accusations that others are trying to use her for their own political agendas. And, yes, it does look a little odd that she has a public relations firm working for her.

But so what? The poor woman has lost a son. Which makes this a lose-lose situation for the president. If he gives in and meets with her, he might be asked to meet time and again with other grieving parents. If he refuses to meet with her, he might look callous and uncaring.

Personally, I don't think the president is callous or uncaring, but I think the war is increasingly boxing him in.

His low poll numbers are a result not just of more losses in Iraq, but a de-coupling of Iraq from the war on terrorism in the mind of the public.

One of Bush's most successful tactics during his re-election campaign in 2004 was coupling the fighting in Iraq with the fight against terrorism in the United States.

It did not really matter why we were in Iraq (the mythical weapons of mass destruction as a reason to go to war no longer counted), but by fighting the insurgents in Iraq, Bush said, we were fighting the terrorists who would do us harm at home.

The public no longer seems to see (or believe) there is much of a connection, however. Some argue that by fighting in Iraq we are actually taking resources away from safeguarding the homeland.

Others say the British are fighting in Iraq and that did not save them from a recent terrorist attack.

All of this is driving down Bush's popularity, while making a reduction of forces in Iraq by the Congressional elections of November, 2006 almost a political necessity. But can we really draw down forces from Iraq at a time when the insurgency seems to be growing in strength and effectiveness? There are those who argue we need more, not fewer forces in Iraq. (Though where we would get those forces and how we would equip them is a real question.)

If all this were not bad enough, there were the two lead stories in the Washington Post and New York Times on Sunday.

The Post story was headlined: "U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq."

It said: "The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say."

Pointing out that August is already the worst month for National Guard and Reserve fatalities since the war began, the story goes on: "Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not."

Then there was the New York Times story. It was headlined: "U.S. Struggling To Get Soldiers Updated Armor."

The story began: "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents."

This is not the kind of story you want to read if you have a loved-one in Iraq. This is not the kind of story you want to read if you are a military recruiter trying to get young Americans to join up and fight in Iraq. The is not, in fact, the kind of story anybody wants to read.

Usually, August is a slow month for the news.

This August, however, has been all too busy.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 10, 2005

WASHINGTON - - The Iraq war is becoming more and more unpopular with the American people as it becomes clear that no matter how noble our goals are, we have little chance of achieving them.

In other words, more people are asking themselves this question: How many Americans have to die to defend democracy in Iraq before the Iraqis step up and start defending it themselves?

The administration position is that we will "stay the course" in Iraq no matter what, but that is not the same thing as having a realizable plan for victory.

As I wrote earlier, from a political standpoint about the best thing the Republicans have going for them regarding the war is that the Democrats offer few alternatives.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, however, offers at least a partial exception to the "stay the course" philosophy.

Feingold, who may be considering a run for the presidency in 2008, has offered resolution in the Senate that calls on President Bush "to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the U.S. military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission."

Feingold, however, makes clear that a "timeframe" is not the same thing as a "deadline."

"My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain," he said in introducing the resolution. "And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders."

So call it a toe in the water, but more toes may follow as the war drags on.

If you wanted to jump in the water, however, you might simply demand that we bring our troops home.

We can't do that, critics say, because after smashing up Iraq, we can't just desert the people there and leave them in chaos.

Did we help screw up Iraq? Yes, no doubt about it. We bombed it, blew up buildings, killed people, and made it possible for terrorists to freely invade and operate inside its borders.

On the other hand, we got rid of an evil dictator and made democracy possible there.

So maybe we're even.

And maybe it's time to say to the Iraqi people: One year from today, you have to stand up and fight for your own country. Because after that, we Americans are gone. Hasta la vista, baby.

Tough? Yes. Unfair? No.

If we continue with our open-ended military commitment in Iraq, why will the Iraqis ever stand up and fight?

To put it another way, if young Americans are doing the fighting in Iraq, why should young Iraqis risk their lives to do so?

I admit that being an Iraqi right now is no picnic. Iraqi civilians are getting blown up by insurgents in greater numbers than U.S. military forces.

But that alone should make the Iraqis angry enough to fight the insurgents for their country.

Becoming a democracy is about more than voting and getting a blue index finger. Sometimes it about standing up and fighting.

Stay the course? We have.

Come back home? It's time.

I can remember during the Vietnam war when the chickenhawks - - those who were eager to send others to fight and die but who risked nothing themselves - - kept wringing their hands and saying, "But how can we leave? How can we leave?"

"By plane," came the answer. "By plane."

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 8, 2005

WASHINGTON - - George Bush's poll numbers are in decline because the Iraq war hangs around his neck like a two-ton albatross.

The latest AP-Ipsos poll puts approval for Bush's handling of the war at only 38 percent and his overall job approval at only 42 percent. (In addition, 50 percent of the country says he is a dishonest and only 48 percent says he is honest.)

The latest Newsweek poll puts Bush's war approval at only 34 percent and his overall approval at 42 percent, his lowest ranking ever.

Since Bush doesn't have to run for office again, you might wonder why this matters. There are at least two reasons:

Republicans in Congress have to run for re-election next year and these figures terrify them. The numbers are getting so bad - - as is the war in Iraq - - that some are already wondering whether a campaign visit by the president would be a plus or a minus in their districts.

One reason the administration is now talking - - largely via leaks to the news media - - about a pull-down of troops in Iraq next year is that Congressional Republicans are virtually demanding a return of some U.S. troops before Election Day. And the Republican Party does not want to even think about trying to run a presidential campaign in 2008 if large numbers of U.S. troops are still fighting and dying in Iraq.

The best thing the Republicans have going for them, in fact, is that the Democrats are not offering any solutions. Most Democrats just parrot what the White House is saying: We must stay the course in Iraq. It's not over until it's over. We will have accomplished our mission when our mission is accomplished.

For voters this is not a choice, but an echo.

One would think that anti-war Democrat Paul Hackett's narrow loss in a special election for a House seat in Ohio recently would give some Democrats the courage to actually oppose the war. But it probably won't. (And Hackett, of course, was an actual Iraq war veteran, which helped deflect criticism of him.)

Yet the amount of voter discontent over the war is still far more trouble for the Republicans, since it was a Republican administration that initiated the war (because of those mirage-like weapons of mass destruction) and continues to pursue it (because it doesn't know what else to do.)

The other reason that Bush is upset with the polls numbers is that they show his political capital now running a deficit.

Those who hailed Bush's recent legislative "triumphs" - - the energy bill, the highway bill and CAFTA - - overlook political reality. In the real America, you can't find a hundred people who know anything about the energy bill, highway bill or CAFTA.

Average Americans - - and this is due in large part to a ferocious publicity campaign by the White House - - are familiar with only one legislative initiative: Social Security. And whatever happened to George Bush's plans to privatize it?

Gone and buried - - along with his high poll numbers.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - - Does anybody still think, as Vice President Cheney thinks, that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes."

Cheney said that on "Larry King Live" at the end of May. But who really believes it?

As I write this on Wednesday, 14 U.S. Marines have been killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha in northwest Iraq.

Two days before, six U.S. Marines were killed in the same area in an ambush by insurgents.

Always trying to find a bright side, Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said Wednesday this was a sign that the insurgents lacked "the freedom of movement" they had before U.S. forces applied pressure on them, so now the insurgents were standing and fighting.

Are we supposed to find some good news in that?

Even the U.S. military death toll - - as I write this it is 1,820 - - does not fully convey what is going on in Iraq.

As Robert H. Reid of the Associated Pres noted a few days ago: "As the Iraq war drags through a third broiling summer, the dying goes on -- and neither the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, nor elections, nor overtures to the Sunnis, nor steps toward a new constitution have been enough to stop it."

Got that? All the stuff the White House brags about - - democracy, elections, constitutions - - none of it seems to be making any difference in the violence.

In fact, things seem to be getting worse. As Reid writes: "According to American military figures, insurgents attacked U.S. and coalition forces an average of 68 times a day during the month (of July.). By comparison, the average daily rate of attacks for July last year was 47."

Got that? The number of daily attacks is going up, not down.

And let's consider the imbalance between the two sides: The insurgents have no planes. They have no helicopters. They have no tanks. They have no heavy artillery. They have no satellites. They have no sophisticated communications systems. They have no "smart" weapons.

So how come they are doing so well? They have the support of too many of the Iraqi people.

Insurgents - - rebels, revolutionaries, they get called different things in different countries - - cannot exist without the support of ordinary people.

People hide them, people feed them, people help them move around and communicate.

And too many Iraqis are helping the insurgents.

Not all the Iraqis, of course. Some are supposedly getting ready to stand up and fight for their own country.

But I fear too many Iraqis have discovered a simple truth: As long as the Americans are standing up and fighting for Iraq, the Iraqis don't have to.

The insurgency is in its "last throes"?

We wish.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - - It was a brisk March day when I climbed into a white Chevy van with Gerry Adams and headed to the British Embassy here.

Adams is the head of the Sinn Fein, the political wing of the outlawed Irish Republican Army, and he had never been invited to the British Embassy before.

It had been unthinkable. The prevailing view of the British government was that if Adams was not a terrorist himself, he was at the very least a front man for terrorists.

But now, in March, 1998, Adams was invited to lunch by the British ambassador and then to his first Oval Office meeting with President Clinton.

As the van pulled drove along Massachusetts Avenue in one of Washington's loveliest neighborhoods, Adams gazed at the elegant buildings.

"Shall we take over the embassy and hold it until Ireland is free?" he said to me with a wicked grin. "And are you with us?"

This was the humorous side of Adams, a man of considerable charm and wit. The unfunny side, his opponents said, was his refusal to promise an end to the violence that had already claimed more than 3,000 lives in Northern Ireland.

When I asked Adams what the role of armed struggle in Northern Ireland should be, he grew careful in his speech and measured in his words.

"It is a prickly issue," he said. "The task of political leadership is to build alternatives to armed struggle. We need healing. It has been painful. You end up negotiating with your own side. You negotiate with the enemy, and then, you go back and negotiate with your own side and try to bring your base along with you."

Now, more than seven years later, Adams has finally brought his base along. The IRA has finally renounced armed struggle and in a blunt statement issued Thursday said: "All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms."

It was more than just Adams who accomplished this, of course. More than anything it was the weariness of the Irish people with the violence, the criminal activity, and the pervasive hopelessness that violence brings.

It was also public revulsion with terrorism. "It's a terrible thing to say, but Al-Qaeda is really good for Northern Ireland," Richard English, the author of "Armed Struggle - - A History of the IRA" told the London Times recently. "It reminds people of how horrific terrorist violence is and puts moral pressure on anyone who wants to be a serious politician to distanced themselves from bombing."

The IRA has renounced violence before and this newest statement is being viewed largely with a wait-and-see attitude in Northern Ireland. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "This is a step of unparalleled magnitude in the recent history of Northern Ireland."

Back in 1998, as we pulled into the British Embassy grounds, I asked Adams if he could really foresee a day when there was peace in Northern Ireland, with no more resistance fighters, and no more armed struggle.

"After World War II, the French resistance went home," he said. "People went back to being doctors and being housewives. The same will happen in Ireland."

Hopefully, that day is now closer at hand.