It’s a story that could be ripped from today’s headlines. An unpopular president commits American forces to a dangerous mission. If things go well, millions will probably see him as a hero. But if they go poorly, his political career is over. Oh, and he may well trigger a new war.
Are we talking about George W. Bush, sending more troops to Iraq in 2007? No. Harry Truman, starting the Berlin Airlift in 1948.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Bush encouraged lawmakers to support his troop surge into Iraq. “This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we’re in,” he said. “Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned and our own security at risk.”
Nothing doing, answered Virginia’s Sen. Jim Webb in the Democrat response. “The majority of our nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought, nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction,” Webb declared. That includes “a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.” In short, he and his party want an “exit strategy” for Iraq.
Webb’s a great writer and a military expert. However, he’s missing the clear meaning of his own words.
Elsewhere in his speech, Webb celebrated the success of the Berlin airlift and of President Eisenhower’s policies toward Korea. But both of these examples highlight the importance of not tying our country to a particular exit strategy. Consider the aftermath of World War II. American troops had occupied Germany for three solid years after winning a bloody war against Hitler’s military machine. Hundreds of thousands of Americans had already given their lives so Europeans could be free.
Instead, Truman ordered Allied pilots to fly dangerous missions to deliver supplies. Some 78 people were eventually killed during the airlift. Truman’s action is popular today because it worked. But if the Soviets had decided to shoot down the Allied planes, or if they had invaded West Germany, he might have triggered World War III.
So why would our men risk death on foreign soil so far from home, and risk starting another war that might eventually have involved nuclear weapons? Because it was critical to show the Soviets that the West wouldn’t back down. Webb’s proud of his father’s role as a pilot in the Berlin airlift, as well he should be. “For more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing,” Webb explained.
That’s eerily similar to the sacrifices being made today by more than 100,000 military families nationwide. They are also living apart, as loved ones risk everything in far-off Iraq. And, just as in Berlin, it’s critical that we win in Iraq, to show today’s enemies (radical Islamists) that the United States won’t back down.
That’s true, as far as it goes, but it’s worth noting that while the fighting ended, the war never did. There was no peace treaty, and to this day there are more than 30,000 American troops serving on the Korean peninsula, making sure the North doesn’t attack again. If it does, the U.S. is committed to help defend the South.
President Bush wants our troops to leave Iraq victorious, which is really the only way any country can afford to leave a war.
Americans once understood that, which is why more than 60 years after World War II and more than 50 years after the Korean War armistice, we’re a lot closer to bring our troops home from Iraq than we are to bringing them home from Germany or South Korea. Whether or not we still understand it will become clear within the next year.