The terrorists and their sympathizers in Iraq keep saying American resolve
is fading - and that American troops will soon fade away with it. But a
headline last week told a different story: "U.S. general says Iraq needs
buildup into '08."
What's this - are the Americans still determined to win in Iraq? How
unsettling that possibility must be for Sunni insurgents, Shi'ite zealots,
al-Qaida killers and any armed Baathists still lurking about.
This can't be what they'd expected. At this point in a long cruel war, the
Americans were supposed to be packing up and pulling out. Instead they're
being reinforced.
Our enemies weren't counting on American resilience. Of course not. They
don't believe in it. Indeed, they've made its absence an article of faith.
The supposed weakness of the decadent West - our lack of staying power in
any protracted conflict-is central not just to the enemy's strategy but its
ideology, which holds that a corrupt, faithless West will be no match for a
newly militant Islam.
It hasn't been too long since al-Qaida's second-in-command was confidently
saying that Iraq would prove just a repeat of Vietnam. Speaking of those
Iraqis now cooperating with our troops, he predicted that America "is about
to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam."
What a shock it must been when a new American general took command with a
new strategy. Another 20,000 American troops are now being readied to secure
Baghdad. And then, in cooperation with Iraqi forces, they're to begin
spreading out, taking and holding enemy strongholds beyond the capital.
The terrorists are reported to be clearing out of Baghdad, headed for safer
havens. What a revolting development this must be for our enemies.
And not just for our enemies. Because a new, Democrat-dominated Congress is
objecting mightily to this show of strength - and this administration's
determination, despite everything, to pursue victory. Democratic leaders are
reacting with cries of outrage - and mounting threats to cut off support for
the war, all the while proclaiming their support for the troops.
It seems a strange way to support the troops, shutting off funds for the
military and objecting to reinforcements - even while padding this latest
appropriation for the war with all kinds of pork, from assorted farm
subsidies to flood control projects. There may be a war on, but the special
interests will get their money as usual.
Then there are all those deadlines and requirements and "benchmarks" being
pressed on the military by Congress. Not since Vietnam has a Congress seemed
so determined to micromanage a war. Or maybe since the days of the Joint
Congessional Committee on the Conduct of the War, which looked over Abraham
Lincoln's shoulder while he was trying to save the Union, occasionally
jiggling his elbow at critical moments.
That the Constitution of the United States makes the president
commander-in-chief of the armed forces must strike the John Murthas and
Nancy Pelosis as only a technicality. They seem to be outdoing each other at
devising ways to impose one restriction after another on his conduct of the
war. Should they actually succeed in hamstringing the armed forces of the
United States, the American people will not forgive them or their party. Or
at least the American people shouldn't.
In the Senate, a couple of Democrats, Joe Biden and Carl Levin, have put
forth a resolution demanding that all American combat troops be called home
by March of next year. Which would put our enemies on notice that, if they
can just hold out till then, they'll have a clear field.
Congress could scarcely send a more hopeful message to America's foes. Or a
more dispiriting one to the troops in the field, who at this point may
simply want to be left alone to fight this war as best they can. With this
kind of "support" in Congress, they need no interference.
Not long ago, the United States Senate, by a nigh-unanimous vote, approved
the appointment of Lieut. Gen. David Petraeus to command American forces in
Iraq. This is the same David Petraeus, Ph.D., who more or less wrote the
book on counterinsurgency, having overseen the production of the Army's new
manual on the subject.
But even before this general has had a decent chance to put his ideas into
effect, the congressional leadership has begun undermining it - by
criticizing his request for more troops, setting limits on how much time
he'll be given to show results, and holding back money for the war.
Call it Operation Slow Bleed. It's a gradual process and, if successful, the
results won't be pretty, starting with the effect of all this congressional
heckling on the morale of our troops.
To quote the president, who must be feeling rather embattled himself these
days: "This may be the first time in the history of the United States
Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then
voted to oppose his plans to succeed in (that) battle."
This is scarcely the first war in which American forces have suffered grave
reverses. But to withhold reinforcements and funds just when they are most
needed. Well, that kind of thing has not been seen since the Vietnam War
and humiliation.
It's as if, during the Second World War, Congress had begun debating how
long to wait before throwing in the towel. Say, after the Allied debacle at
Dieppe, or the bloody massacre at Kasserine Pass, or even as late as the
abject failure of Operation Market Garden after D-Day, or the collapse of
Allied forces in the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge.
Any such debate would have been unthinkable even in the worst days of the
Second World War; today it is the stuff of the daily news.
Those of us who find it incomprehensible that Congress should be toying with
cutting off funds for American troops in the midst of a war are being
assured that such resolutions are non-binding, that they're just for show.
That's supposed to make them all right. Because all these resolutions are
just a handy way for our solons to appease popular anti-war feeling without
actually accepting responsibility for the drastic steps they're proposing.
But this little escape clause, like the unconvincing talk about supporting
the troops even while cutting off funds for the war they're fighting,
scarcely makes such tactics more palatable. It only makes them insincere.