Consequences? What Consequences?

The past couple of weeks have been ripe for opinion. The US Senate voted 81 to 0 to confirm Lt. Gen David Petraeus as the new Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq. Along with the command comes his fourth star, and a host of well wishes from the honorable men and women in the Senate. Of course, these self-same hired hands are also planning to vote to condemn the proposed troop "surge" that Gen. Petraeus has endorsed as the proper solution to the current problems in Iraq. Apparently the seeming disconnect, if not outright hypocrisy, of these two positions is lost on the stellar intellects who grace us with their presence in the upper chamber of Congress. The esteemed members of congress behind the non-binding resolutions currently making the rounds, have decried this disconnect as immaterial. They are not proposing "peace with honor," just dialogue, they argue. Of course, not more than a couple of months ago the same politicians were decrying the war effort in Iraq as simply supporting the status quo. Now, with a new plan led by a new commander (who wrote the book on counter-insurgency), the anti-war contingent in Congress is telling us that the non-binding resolutions are nothing more than a means to make the President wake up to the fact that we must find a way to withdraw from Iraq.

When the Baker-Hamilton Group released its report, the anti-war caucus trumpeted its findings by way of every media venue that would have them. "We must use diplomacy in the region" was the standard mantra. The Baker-Hamilton Group also endorsed a temporary surge, and both James Baker and Lee Hamilton testified as such before Congress last week. That part of the equation does not fit the current mode of attack though, so it has been routinely ignored. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which was released last week was also cherry-picked by Congress. Statements concerning the "dismal" situation in Iraq were made ad nauseum, but the statements refuting the characterization of Iraq as a civil war were ignored. In case you missed it, the NIE referred to the current imbroglio in Iraq as follows, "The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements." The estimate continues, "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we would judge that this would almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation." The portion of the report that was released continues on its bureaucratic path for a couple more pages, detailing the potential for intervention from neighboring countries. None of that information comports with the political machinations though, so it may as well not exist.

The anti-war legislators have picked up the support of leftist actors who have "patiently" held their tongues until their "consciences" demanded they speak. At a self-proclaimed "peace protest" in Washington, DC, 10,000 people listened to Tim Robbins explain that our current occupation in Iraq is leading us down the "path to ethnic cleansing." Sean Penn decried the military use of "heavy armament to kill civilians," and Hanoi Jane herself, responding to a question concerning the 3,000,000 people who were murdered after we precipitously left Vietnam, said, "it's a shame our intervention there caused it." These people are the public face of the anti-war rhetoric. They routinely call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. These actors and their allies in Congress should cease calling themselves a "peace movement" and should begin to call themselves what they are: a withdrawal movement. That, at least, would be honest. Neither the actors nor the members of congress care that peace will not return if we leave Iraq. Both the members of congress and the actors have continuously attempted to frame Iraq in the Vietnam mold. For the most part it is Vietnam that defined their opposition models, and, in the case of Jane Fonda, solidified her role in the hearts of the No War For Any Reason! crowd.

So, what is to be done? It is the highest of folly to think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would result in anything but further, more intense turmoil in the Middle East. It has already been proven that Iran has been meddling in Iraqi affairs, and may be directly responsible for American deaths. At the very least they have provided material support and border entry to insurgents. Iranian agents have been captured inside Iraq. Until a Presidential order was issued last week, these agents were held for three days and released. American forces may now capture and/or kill any Iranian agents found to be operating inside Iraq. Were we to leave before the Iraqi government could fully implement security and law enforcement controls, Iran would undoubtedly attempt to foment further violence in the hopes of setting up a totalitarian Shia regime friendly to Iran, if not an outright puppet state. The Sunni, already feeling marginalized, would have no choice but to openly oppose such an arrangement. Ethnic cleansing could then result, as could a spreading of the hostilities across regional borders. No one can say for sure what would happen, but we have to admit it would not be good for us, or the rest of the world, let alone the Middle East.

It would seem then that there is no choice but to give Gen. Petraeus the chance to implement the plan of which the surge is but one part. That may not be possible though. With anti-war momentum growing and becoming more emboldened everyday, Congress may act to cut off the funds for military action. Many members of Congress have said that the non-binding resolutions are not a precursor to that, but enough Vietnam-style rhetoric is popping up that cutting off the money cannot be far away. Senators Kennedy and Feingold have called for an immediate cutting off of the funds necessary to sustain the war effort. Perennial presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has called for a cessation of war funding and an immediate withdrawal. Even Senator Clinton remarked that when she becomes President in January 2009 that she will end the war. Funny how none of these stances make any reference to planning for peace; something that they excoriated the current administration for failing to do. It seems that Vietnam is the rallying cry. Forget that when we pulled out of Vietnam neither the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong followed us home. The same cannot be said of Iraq. Bin Laden has referenced both Vietnam and, more recently, Somalia as examples of American "cowardice." Bin Laden concluded that, "Americans love life so much that they are not willing to risk it." What makes any rational individual think a precipitous withdrawal would have any effect but to further that notion, and the radical Islamic cause?

Unfortunately, the cause for withdrawal has gathered momentum and the Vietnamization of Iraq has begun. I recently saw a "mock graveyard" arranged on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. The names of civilians killed in Iraq were listed on placards nailed to posts in the ground. Most of these were attributed to ambiguous actions such as "tank attack" or "mortar attack," but a couple stated that the victim had been murdered by American soldiers. Those particular "tombstones" were removed rather quickly, but the slippery slope has been reached. The call for cutting off the troops in the field has begun, and before you know it all who have ever served will, once again, be baby-killing rapists. The far left has ceased blaming the politicians and has moved on to the soldiers and marines fighting for the Left's right to slander them. If I remember Newton's 3rd Law of Motion from 9th grade correctly, every action has and equal and opposite reaction. Pulling the troops out of Iraq before the country can successfully govern itself would provide an opposite reaction to that which we desire. It would not provide peace, nor would it promote security here.

We have not suffered a terrorist attack on US shores since 9/11 partly because we have been lucky, partly because some of our intelligence services are good, and partly because the jihadist focus is elsewhere. With no American devils to kill in Iraq the militant Islamists will seek out us and other democracies. That means bombs on subways in Manhattan, or buses in Los Angeles, or something much worse in Phoenix. Those events may still come to pass, whether or not the ship of state that is Iraq rights itself. No one can predict the future, not with any certainty. What can be predicted though is that actions have consequences; no matter what the immediate-withdrawal crowd tells you. The radicals will be emboldened by a withdrawal. They will see it as an American defeat. The hand-wringers among us have shrilly declared the war in Iraq to be a "recruiting" tool for radicals. A loss there would be the biggest recruiting tool al-Qaeda and its brethren could ever dream of. Everybody loves a winner. That's why the winning team of each year's Super Bowl sees a spike in its merchandising. Al-Qaeda recruitment after an American loss would be the exact same brand of marketing, on a nefarious scale. Nowhere in the world would it be safe to be an American. At this point I am uncertain if the anti-war momentum can be stopped, or even slowed down. I do not profess to know with any certainty what will befall us if we were to pull out tomorrow. I do know however, that the end result for the country I hold most dear will be one for which we are not prepared. I do know that such action will result in many more of my fellow citizens being murdered and maimed by terrorists who hate our freedoms. Most importantly, I know that we will simply have to fight them again on their ground, or lose our way of life. It may be years before that happens, but that will not make it any easier. Life is full of tough decisions, and the right ones are usually the toughest. The right decision now is to give the President's plan, with Gen. Petraeus walking point, a chance to succeed. I am not optimistic that that will happen, but in my heart I know it is the type of tough decision that Americans have always been called upon to make. I only hope it does not take another 9/11 before we all decide to make it.