- The Washington Times - Saturday, November 11, 2006

“Where are you going?” According to the Apostle (John: 16:5), Christ urged his followers to ask that question shortly before the tumult of his arrest, trial, execution and resurrection. In the aftermath of this turbulent week, it’s a relevant line of inquiry for President Bush and the new leaders in Congress.

Despite all the pre-vote hype, postelection polls show it wasn’t just a wave of antiwar sentiment that swept Democrats into power: 3 in 4 voters apparently voted for Democrats because of corruption and scandal in Washington. Fewer than half of those who cast a ballot claimed to be motivated by the prospect a “change in Congress” would result in a new approach to the war in Iraq. It now appears the war isn’t at the top of the new majority’s agenda either.

Since Tuesday’s election results became obvious, Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly made clear her party’s priorities are: “Jobs, health care, education, energy independence, a safer America, a dignified retirement — that’s what the Democrats are all about.” What about Iraq? Answer: The Democrats don’t have an easy answer and they have no prescription.

Though some, like Majority Leader wanna-be Jack Murtha, made “Get Out Now” a mantra and others advocated “defunding” U.S. involvement in Iraq, neither will happen. Mrs. Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada want to lead the Congress — and recapture the Oval Office in two years. They don’t want responsibility for a potential failure in Iraq.

Throughout the long congressional campaign season, the only consistency among Democrats was that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to “go,” and there had to be “change” in Iraq. Now that the honorable Mr. Rumsfeld has resigned and removed himself as the administration’s lightning rod — and former CIA Director Robert Gates has been nominated to replace him — Democrats have become suddenly aware they will have a share of the outcome in Iraq.

All that begs the question as to what now happens. If the new majority in Congress wants to tie the Bush administration in knots with investigations and a flurry of subpoenas, they can surely do so. That of course will do nothing to deter Wahhabi terrorists, Shia radicals and the Muslim Brotherhood from pursuing their jihad against us. Nor will it do anything to help the Iraqi government establish security and stability in Mesopotamia.

The challenges ahead are formidable. Notwithstanding Mr. Gates’ failure to be confirmed as CIA director when nominated for the post in 1987, it now appears old opponents like Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy will allow the Gates appointment as defense secretary to be “fast tracked” through the Senate. But changing leaders at the Pentagon doesn’t mean things automatically will improve.

Until his nomination as defense secretary last week, Mr. Gates has served on the so-called bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG), headed by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and retired Rep. Lee Hamilton. Because of the electoral outcome — and Mr. Gates’ involvement in preparing the ISG recommendations — the panel’s report is now being viewed in Washington as a panacea for what the Democrats have called the “quagmire” of Iraq. It’s not.

There are no “quick fixes” in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are but campaigns in a protracted war we did not want — but which we must win. The ISG’s report does offer new perspectives on why it has been so difficult for the Baghdad government to unify the country and provide sufficient security to rebuild Iraq’s shattered economy. And those who believe “negotiations” are an end unto themselves will be cheered by encouragement to open a “dialogue” with Tehran and Damascus on a whole range of issues.

But the president and this new Congress should view skeptically that which equates the jihad waged against the West with the Arab-Israeli conflict of the last half-century. Even if Israel disappeared tomorrow — as advocated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — Islamic radicals will not cease their apocalyptic quest to reestablish a globe-spanning caliphate. Neither last Tuesday’s election, nor a new defense secretary nor an ISG report can alter that reality.

The shift in power on Capitol Hill may, however, have the salutary effect of forcing Mr. Bush to focus on what he will leave behind at the end of his term. It is now clear he will not be allowed to make his tax cuts permanent. Regrettably, he won’t go down in history for repairing Social Security. The economy is strong — but all that will be forgotten in a decade. George Bush’s legacy will be defined by the outcome of what Don Rumsfeld called this “little understood” war. Hopefully everyone in Washington now knows our military wins battles but only nations can win wars.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the Host of “War Stories” on the Fox News Channel, seen Sundays at 8 p.m.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide