- The Washington Times - Sunday, January 28, 2007

The battlelines were carved into the Senate floor over a Democratic resolution condemning President Bush’s war plans to send more troops to Iraq. But it was hard to ignore the inconvenient truth that this ill-timed measure will aid the terrorists and depress the morale of our soldiers who are fighting to defeat them.

Democrats insisted last week that the resolution, a nonbinding statement that lacks the force of law, was needed to begin a long-overdue debate on the war, its direction and U.S. participation in it.

But Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Republican, wondered, as did others, what signal this debate and this resolution would send to Iraq’s government, its civilian population, and to the terrorists who are bent on killing as many of them as they need to seize power and end the country’s experiment in democracy.

“In an open democracy, we voice our agreements and disagreements in public, and we should not be reticent to do so. But official roll call votes carry a unique message,” Mr. Lugar told committee members before they voted 12-9 largely along party lines for the resolution.

A vote for the measure that the Senate will begin debating this week “will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray,” Mr. Lugar warned. Indeed, if one were looking for contradictions, mixed messages and confusion within Democratic ranks about the war and what to do about it, they were easy to find last week.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in the war, pointed out that the senators were condemning the war in the Foreign Relations Committee while the Armed Services panel was in the midst of making Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus a four-star general and wishing him “God speed” in his new and incredibly difficult job as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Here we have one of the military’s smartest leaders, who helped write the Army’s manual on counterinsurgency warfare, heading to Iraq to turn around a dismal situation even Mr. Bush has described as a “slow failure.” And the Senate is preparing to pass a resolution essentially saying the war is a mistake and it would be a fool’s errand to send in more troops to help stabilize the country long enough for the Iraqi army to take over.

Rarely, if, in fact, ever in our history, has this country sent a war leader into battle while condemning the mission he and the armed forces he will lead have been asked to complete.

Looking for more confusion within Democratic ranks? Reread Virginia Sen. James Webb’s response to Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address. He called the war “reckless” and “mismanaged,” but what would he do differently? Well, he said, we need a new direction, but “not a precipitous withdrawal.” On the other hand, we need “a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.” Huh?

“Webb’s logic was as incoherent as his language (the two are often related),” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote on Newsweek’s Web site. “Fight the war vigorously — except where the terrorists have chosen to fight it.”

Threaded through the war debate was the argument nothing good came from the administration’s decision to topple a war-making, dictatorial regime that promoted terrorism in all forms across the Middle East, wen to war against Iran, took over Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia.

Vice President Dick Cheney sought to put some semblance of balance into the debate last week in a combative interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who saw nothing but “blunders and failures” in Iraq. Mr. Cheney would have none of it, saying the questioner’s premise was “hogwash.”

“What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do. The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There’s a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam Hussein has been brought to justice and executed. His government is gone,” Mr. Cheney said.

Yes we have “ongoing problems” in Iraq, but the bottom line is “we’ve had enormous successes,” Mr. Cheney argued.

Certainly, that is true and needs to be added to the scales by which we measure the achievement of the war to overthrow a terrorist regime. Now we are engaged in a wider war against an insurgency Gen. Petraeus and 21,500 additional troops are being sent in to quell.

The time for evaluating the success or failure of this endeavor will come soon enough, but now is not the time to send a message to friend and foe alike that we no longer believe in this mission. Someone should remind the Senate, when it begins its debate this week, that the additional troops Mr. Bush is sending in will help save the lives of soldiers already there.

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 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