The face of victory in Iraq
The barbarism in Mumbai and the economic crisis at home have largely overshadowed an otherwise singular event: the ratification of military and strategic cooperation agreements between Iraq and the United States.Does anyone seriously think this would have happened if John Kerry or Barack Obama were president the last four years? I don't. As good as it is to see this remarkable event, it is more than disgusting that the Democrats hare paying no political price for being so wrong about the solution to the problems in Iraq. Instead they are being rewarded with election victories they do not deserve.They must not pass unnoted. They were certainly noted by Iran, which fought fiercely to undermine the agreements. Tehran understood how a formal U.S.-Iraqi alliance endorsed by a broad Iraqi consensus expressed in a freely elected parliament changes the strategic balance in the region.
For the United States, it represents the single most important geopolitical advance in the region since Henry Kissinger turned Egypt from a Soviet client into an American ally. If we don't blow it with too hasty a withdrawal from Iraq, we will have turned a chronically destabilizing enemy state at the epicenter of the Arab Middle East into an ally.
Also largely overlooked at home was the sheer wonder of the procedure that produced Iraq's consent: classic legislative maneuvering with no more than a tussle or two -- tame by international standards (see YouTube: "Best Taiwanese Parliament Fights Of All Time!") -- over the most fundamental issues of national identity and direction.
The only significant opposition bloc was the Sadrists, a mere 30 seats out of 275. The ostensibly pro-Iranian religious Shiite parties resisted Tehran's pressure and championed the agreement. As did the Kurds. The Sunnis put up the greatest fight. But their concern was that America would be withdrawing too soon, leaving them subject to overbearing and perhaps even vengeful Shiite dominance.
The Sunnis, who only a few years ago had boycotted provincial elections, bargained with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, trying to exploit his personal stake in agreements he himself had negotiated. They did not achieve their maximum objectives. But they did get formal legislative commitments for future consideration of their grievances, from amnesty to further relaxation of the de-Baathification laws.
That any of this democratic give-and-take should be happening in a peaceful parliament just two years after Iraq's descent into sectarian hell is in itself astonishing. Nor is the setting of a withdrawal date terribly troubling. The deadline is almost entirely symbolic. U.S. troops must be out by Dec. 31, 2011 -- the weekend before the Iowa caucuses, which, because God is merciful, will arrive again only in the very fullness of time. Moreover, that date is not just distant but flexible. By treaty, it can be amended. If conditions on the ground warrant, it will be.
...
What that seems to prove is that the Republicans are better at fighting the enemy than they are at fighting the Democrats. It also means that the Democrats are better at fighting the Republicans than they are at fighting the enemy.
Their solution of defeat and retreat would have been a debacle from which they hoped to get political gain by blaming it on Republicans. That alone should disqualify them from consideration on the issue of national security, yet here we are and the new President elect appears to be adopting the policies he deplored during the election.
"What that seems to prove is that the Republicans are better at fighting the enemy than they are at fighting the Democrats ..."
ReplyDeleteThe singular turning pount for me, was during one of the debates, when Johnnie Mac was firmly and repeatedly telling Obie, that what he was saying about Mac's TV commercials, was untrue.
While Mac was firm, even resolute. There was no fire. He be far too dignified, to simply do what needed be done.
Turn to Obie and slowly, clearly, and l o u d l y say: You Sir are a liar. To his face.