By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A27
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Lieberman thinks Iraq is the battlefield on which the US and Iran are engaged in a war for (or against, depends on which side you're talking about) moderation and democracy in the Middle East. Does Lieberman know that this bipole puts on the same side as Al Qaeda in the Iraqi civil war? Or does he simply not know that Iraq is in civil war between Sunni and Shia factions? His depiction of the Middle East as split between American and Iranian interests completely ignores the existence of Sunnis. It makes no sense and sounds more like a frame for the next war than anything connected to our problems in Iraq.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
And Lieberman will not be out George-W-Bushed than anyone, not even George W. Bush.
The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action -- and soon.
Only one person is capable of decisive action: The Decider. What the hell are you Dirty Fucking Hippies thinking, that you have a say in when this war ends?
The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.
It's quite simple, the problem isn't anything that we've done wrong - any failures of planning, leadership, or coalition building. The problem is people die every day in Iraq. All we have to do is stop people from getting killed and everything will be peachy. I assume your children are up to the task.
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds.
You heard me: no one could have seen this coming.
It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
My enemies enemy is my friend. Ignore the fact that Iran is a Shia state, backing Shia factions in Iraq and Al Qaeda is a Sunni group, backing Sunni militias in Iraq; we're the only enemy there, all Arabs love each other.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.
If Iran and Al Qaeda are drawn into propping up a full-scale civil war in Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda win. That is, if there's a civil war in Iraq the forces fighting each other in that war win. [This might be the single stupidest justification for escalation in Iraq I've heard yet - people who want to kill each other win if they get to kill each other.]
In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."
Obviously in my ten day trip to the Middle East I found one anonymous colonel who perfectly echoes my talking points. Did you expect anything else?
More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.
...
The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.
You were waiting for the pony, here it is.
The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.
There is no longer a democratic process to tie our success to; we can only work towards security and stability. We're in Iraq until Iraq's civil war is over. The only Serious option is sending tens of thousands of more of America's children to fight and die to bring us to a point where Iraqis don't die any more. Only a man with Vision has the will and courage to escalate the war at a point where even the most rabid supporters see victory unlikely. Once again I register by support to George W. Bush's (as of yet unstated) plan to infinity.
The writer is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
The writer is a Connecticut for Lieberman senator from Connecticut.
MLN is powered by