Vice President Cheney is not backing down. He said so. At issue are remarks he made about the plan espoused by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha which they describe as a "slow bleed" method of bringing the war in Iraq to an end. Cheney's position is this,
"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home," Cheney added. "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."
Pelosi complained loudly but refused to challenge the logic behind Cheney's remarks. It was, she said, "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in." Is it possible to make a stupider, more disingenuous statement than that one? How can it be beneath dignity to discuss the consequences of a proposed course of action, I'd like to know.
Conditions for American withdrawal have always rested on how quickly the Iraqi government can take over responsibility for security. It has been a challenge, but there has been progress. Last September the Iraqi government promised three battalions for Baghdad security, but none of them showed up. Compre that to last week when three Iraqi brigades and two Iraqi battalions reported for duty in Baghdad at a 70% strength. Although 70% would be a dismal percentage by American standards, it represents substantial improvement.
It's too soon to know with a certainty that the operation to secure Baghdad will be a success, but it seems to be working so far. We are only two weeks into it, but initial indications are good. Violence has not been eliminated but it is substantially down. Families driven out have begun to return. Mohammed of Iraq the Model toured the city and had this to say.
The buildup of troops in the capital seems to be incremental and increasing by the day giving a steadily growing sense of the seriousness of the operation. Yesterday during my tour with some friends we were stopped to be searched seven times during about only two hours; five times in Karkh and two in Resafa. The search typically includes verifying the vehicle registration papers, looking for guns and munitions or suspicious objects, destination of the passenger/driver and often their identity cards. In general the security personnel are polite in their dealing with people they search and some of them even end the procedure with an apology for the inconvenience.
We are getting used to the procedures at checkpoints; keep your hands visible on the wheel, keep your papers close to you, prepare to open the trunk and if it's getting dark then turn the headlights off and turn the reading light on.
I hear a lot from people how they want to see checkpoint search each and every vehicle on the street even their own because we know that the more effective checkpoints are the more secure the city would be.
It comes down to the question of time. With enough time, the violence in Baghdad will be brought under control. But can it be done quickly enough to satisfy those who claim Iraq is a lost cause and demand immediate withdrawal? I think the answer to that is, no. Nothing is quick enough. For whatever reason, the Democratic leadership has become heavily invested in an American defeat in Iraq. They seem to be in a race to get the troops out before Baghdad can be brought under control.
Yes, Iraq is a mess, as all wars are messes, but the Iraq policy is not a failure. It can become a failure if we follow the advice of Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha. Vice President Cheney knows this and has said so. Forcing an American withdrawal from Iraq is the aim of al Qaeda in Iraq. For Pelosi and Murtha to allow themselves, even by accident, to share the aims of al Qaeda, is incredibly stupid or incredibly brazen. Dignity notwithstanding, Pelosi's refusal to dispute the logic of Cheney's argument can mean only one thing. She can't.
Comments