"No one knows how America's occupation of Iraq
will play out. Optimists say this will be like Germany and Japan after World
War II. ... Pessimists point to Lebanon and Israel's invasion of 1982.
"Put me down among the pessimists. I think Brer Rabbit just hit the tar baby."
So I wrote, a year ago, as our tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Last week's Fallujah horror, the separate killing of five U.S. soldiers that
same day, and 10 more over the weekend in battles with Shi'ite radicals, suggests
we did indeed hit the tar baby when the 3rd Infantry Division crossed the Line
Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. Saddam had no role in 9-11,
no ties to Al Qaeda, no WMD – the programmed liars of the Iraqi National Congress
notwithstanding. We all know it now.
Even Colin Powell is saying the case for war he made to the United Nations
was based on bad intelligence and he might have argued differently in the war
Cabinet had he known it. Nevertheless, as Dean Rusk used to say, "We are there,
and we are committed."
What Fallujah and the Shi'ite attacks Sunday tell us is that failure is now
an option. We have not pacified the Sunni Triangle. In towns like Fallujah,
Americans are at greater risk than Israelis in Gaza. Even before the radical
Shi'ites clashed with our troops in Baghdad, geostrategist Anthony Cordesman
was warning that defense officials were telling him, "New combatants are emerging
as fast as we kill or capture the old ones."
But if the Iraqi resistance is recruiting fighters faster than we kill or capture
them, and Shi'ites are joining the resistance, and we are drawing down our troop
levels and handing over power to Iraqis, how do we win?
We cannot. Either we accept the possibility of defeat, or adopt the McCain
option: more boots on the ground, more divisions in Iraq. In Gen. MacArthur's
words, as he suddenly encountered Chinese troops as he marched to the Yalu,
it is "an entirely new war."
Writing in The National Interest, U.S. diplomat Morton Abramowitz says the
United States can yet withdraw without grave damage to its vital interests:
"America's pre-eminent power position in the world can endure an early withdrawal
from Iraq. ... Indeed, one can make the case that U.S. forces are so overstretched
that a withdrawal might enhance our overall power position and our capacity
to do more about Osama bin Laden and other terrorist groups."
Cordesman believes defeat in Iraq would be an American disaster far greater
"Regardless of whether the United States should have invaded Iraq, the fact
is that it did. Its power and prestige are on the line. It also has stakes in
the future of allied leaders in Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland. ...
Its influence in the Persian Gulf – with some 60 percent of the world's proven
reserves of crude oil – is at risk, as is its strategic position in the rest
of the Middle East. If the United States abandons Iraq, it hands Islamic extremists
all over the world a decisive victory, and effectively makes Osama bin Laden
the victor ..."
Yet even Cordesman suggests there may be a window out of Iraq, with honor and
perhaps without disastrous consequences.
"Must the United States remain in Iraq until it succeeds there? No. If the
Iraqis reject U.S. support through their own government or if they engage in
civil war, no one will fault the United States for exiting. In every other scenario,
however, withdrawal will be a serious defeat."
But if a regime comes to power that tells us to get out, or Iraq disintegrates
in civil war, is not George W. Bush a failed president?
What explanation does he then offer the families who will have lost 1,000 men?
What does he tell a nation that plunged $200 billion into Iraq as to why we
invaded in the first place? To find WMD that did not exist? To introduce democracy
to the Middle East?
Fallujah is not Iraq, Cordesman reminds us. True. It is a hot pocket of hatred
for America. It does not represent all Sunnis, who are 20 percent of the population,
or the Kurds or Shi'ites. But if we cannot pacify Fallujah with the best soldiers
in the world, how can we expect the pro-American Iraqis to do it after we draw
down our forces and depart?
That is why we are probably not leaving for a long, long time. For should we
go and should Baghdad fall, as Saigon fell, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld enter
the history books beside Johnson, McNamara and Rusk.
Like the man said, we are there and we are committed.
To find out more about Patrick J. Buchanan and read features by other Creators
Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.