Sen. Richard Lugar described in the Washington Post the strongest, most rational sounding version of a redeployment:
"A potent redeployment of U.S. forces in the region to defend oil assets, target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran and provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict. In the best case, we could supplement bases in the Middle East with troops stationed outside urban areas in Iraq. Such a redeployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would not require us to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions."
I am not sure that such a limited redeployment is exactly what the war critics have in mind. But even if Murtha, Pelosi, Biden, Hegel, et al. and the passionate anti-war element of the public would accept it, it would probably only delay full retreat. Because, to the extent that Lugar's redeployment removes our troops from Baghdad and other violent areas, exactly to that extent we will be getting poorer intelligence, have less influence on events and be more passive sitting behind fortifications.
How exactly would we able to stop Iranian border intrusions from these remote, passive locations when we have not been able to stop it while currently forward deployed? How would we target terrorist enclaves if we are not in the field gathering intelligence from the people (whose trust has to be earned before their tips will be given to us)? Would our redeployed troops be placed in the oil fields, or over the horizon and forced to truck or helicopter in when an emergency arises -- remembering that it is during the transporting of troops that they are most vulnerable to blind-sided attacks?
Both in conventional and counter insurgency warfighting, fixed fortifications, as Gen. George Patton said, "are monuments to the stupidity of man." In 1983, we lost almost 300 fine Marines who were supposedly bivouacked out of harm's way.
Now is a good time for clear thinking and speaking. If we intend to succeed (and it is vital that we do), then we must persist. If the "surge" doesn't work, then more troops and different strategies should be employed.
If we are going to throw in the towel, then we should bring the troops home promptly, lick our wounds and prepare for the inevitable Third Gulf War, which we will have to fight under far worse conditions than currently. Either of those options are at least honest (although the latter is dangerously foolish).
But the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise.
Perhaps they can fool their own flaccid minds, but history grades hard and true. And history may enter its ledger with shocking promptness.
Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley, a conservative author and commentator who served as press secretary to Newt Gingrich during the 1990s, when Republicans took control of Congress, died Sunday January 8, 2012. He was 63.
Blankley, who had been suffering from stomach cancer, died Saturday night at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, his wife, Lynda Davis, said Sunday.
In his long career as a political operative and pundit, his most visible role was as a spokesman for and adviser to Gingrich from 1990 to 1997. Gingrich became House Speaker when Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives following the 1994 midterm elections.
©Creators Syndicate