Concerning point one, It seems to me that Podhoretz's essay puts things
into the correct perspective. Iraq is not an isolated war
somehow disconnected from the overall war on terror. When viewed from the Bush
doctrine, it is an integral part. And while there are insurgents who
have their own reasons for fighting us there, it is clear that our enemies in
the war on terror see this as a battle they really need to win. If they can
drive the U.S. out of Iraq they will have achieved a huge victory. If they
can subsequently make large parts of Iraq align with Iran (or other Taliban-like
Islamists), then they will have succeeded in turning this war on terror in their
favor.
The
point is, we must start forcefully emphasizing how integral Iraq is to
our overall war on terror. We must realize how much the enemy wants to see us
defeated there. We must realize that the extremes they have gone to fighting us
there have more to do with the worldwide war we our engaged in then just to do
with Iraq.
Both
Shiite and Sunni have reasons for seeking civil war, but on the whole they don't
really want all out civil war. If they did, we would have already seen it. No,
it's the outside extremists who want to push Iraq that way. They are the ones
who will do anything to make Iraq a miserable place to live. They are the ones
who take advantage of the long standing resentments and fears between Shia and
Sunni to push civil war as the only option left open for
them.
Iraq
is hard exactly because it is such a turning point on the war on terror. Lose
this and we are put on the run. Lose this and the extremists know they can win
again on the next battlefield, and one of their choosing.
Winning in Iraq is a BIG deal for them. They know it. They fight
like it. Do we? All of us?
Or are
we ready to concede the war on terror?
Concerning the second point of radicals winning at the ballot box. This
certainly is a gamble on our part. After all, it wouldn't be a good thing to see
a country like Egypt lose to radicals at the ballot box. But as bad as that
would be, true freedom and democracy are the only long term solutions
to the problems we face in the region. As long as we say we can't risk giving
the people of the region freedom, then we will be forced to acknowledge we favor
keeping tyranny in place out of our own interests -- and that simply won't
succeed long term.
It is
better to accept setbacks at the ballot box now and be consistent in fighting
for freedom and democracy, while at the same time we can voice our displeasure
(or even resort to sanctions) to what freely elected governments choose to do
(as with Hamas).
But
given our vulnerability in this area, it is therefore even more
incumbent on us to see freedom through to the end in Iraq and other places where
it has a good chance of succeeding. Pull out of Iraq, and we not only lose
there, but pro-freedom Muslims in the region will give up hope that we will
support them when push comes to shove. Why should Pakistan continue to support
us if they see us run from Iraq? Wouldn't Afghanistan be next? And then
Pakistan?
No, in
my view the Bush doctrine is exactly right. But since our enemy has become so
serious in fighting us, it's time we review our strategies and fight back
appropriately with the view to truly win this war on terror!