The Retreat of the Old Bulls
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
DIGG THIS
What was anticipated
in September, the retreat of the old bulls of the Republican Party
from the Bush war policy, happened in June. The beginning of the
end of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is at hand.
"I rise
today," said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana on Monday, "to offer
observations on the continuing involvement of the United States
in Iraq. . . . [O]ur course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital
interests in the Middle East and beyond."
According
to the six-term, ex-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
three factors make it improbable the "surge" can succeed – and imperative
the United States redeploy its troops, out of combat and perhaps
out of Iraq: political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing strain
on the U.S. military and the crumbling support at home.
Lugar's
stance provides cover for Republicans anxious to break and join
the chorus for early withdrawal. Beyond Sen. John McCain, a few
generals and some neoconservative commentators, no one is calling
for more U.S. troops. The handwriting is on the wall.
"A course
change should happen now," said Lugar. But if his diagnosis seems
on target, his remedy lacks credibility.
The United
States has four strategic goals in Iraq, says Lugar. Prevent creation
of a safe haven for terrorists. Prevent sectarian war from spilling
out into the broader Middle East. Prevent Iran's domination of the
region. Limit the loss of U.S. credibility through the region and
the world as a result of a failed mission in Iraq.
Lugar's
recommended policy to secure these goals: "[A] down-sizing and redeployment
of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq and
the Middle East."
Lugar is
calling for what the Iraq Study Group recommended, a shift of U.S.
combat brigades out of action and out of country, turning their
duties over to the Iraqis.
Most Americans
may concur and cheer Lugar. But what is hard to see is the connection
between the goals Lugar declares are vital, and the policy course
he proposes for securing them.
Those 150,000
U.S. troops are the most effective, if not the only reliable, units
preventing all-out sectarian civil war and defending the government,
the contractors, the aid workers and the Green Zone. If we draw
them down, how secure will the Americans left behind, and the friends
of America, be in Iraq? What is to prevent the enemy from launching
Tet-style offensives in U.S.-abandoned sectors? When Tet occurred
in Vietnam in 1968, we had 500,000 U.S troops to deal with it. It
is really a time for truth.
After four
years, 3,500 dead, 25,000 wounded and half a trillion dollars spent,
the four strategic goals of Sen. Lugar have not only not been attained,
they are receding. Removing U.S. troops may only advance the day
that all are lost.
If the
U.S. forces, the most effective in Iraq, have failed to eradicate
the al Qaeda nests in Anbar, how does he suppose the Shia-dominated
government and Iraqi army will succeed?
With the
sectarian civil war near its height when a U.S. surge is underway,
how will ending the surge and pulling out those troops cool, rather
than unleash, the passions for killing?
As for
Iran's domination of the Gulf, fear of that was a major argument
made against going to war. If you smash the only Arab nation in
the Gulf able to stand up to Persian Iran, overthrow its Sunni regime
and introduce majority, i.e., Shia rule, how can Iran not be the
beneficiary?
This war
was not thought through. It was not only mismanaged, it was an historic
strategic blunder to begin with.
Any
U.S. war to overthrow Iran's enemies – the Taliban in Kabul, Saddam
and his Sunni Baathists in Baghdad – cannot but result in making
Iran more dominant in the Gulf when the Americans depart. By eliminating
the counterweight to Iranian domination, we guaranteed that either
we become that counterweight, or there is none.
As for
preventing a loss of U.S. credibility in the region and the world,
it is a little late for that. Bin Laden said Americans are weaker
than Russians. They will not take the casualties. Was he wrong?
In his
assessment of the Iraqi government, the cracking U.S. Army and the
dwindling American will to sustain this war, Lugar is right. But
no energetic diplomacy is going to save for this country what the
best army in the world fighting four years could not hold.
The
self-deceptions must end. When we draw down and pull out U.S. forces,
the odds will rise steadily that this war ends as did the one in
Southeast Asia – with our friends slaughtered and our enemies triumphant.
We may all hope not, but hope is a virtue, not a policy.
June
29, 2007
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail] is co-founder and editor of The
American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books,
including Where
the Right Went Wrong, and A
Republic Not An Empire.
Copyright
© 2007 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|