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."
Posted by rsimon at August 10, 2005 02:58 PM