For all the talk of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the deliverance of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which has been in the works for weeks, involving the assistance of several U.S. agencies, the Kingdom of Jordan, and Iraq, is an illustration of why we cannot pull out. Simply put, there is so much more to be done. Perhaps the killing of Zarqawi will prompt the end of the vicious insurgency that has gripped Iraq despite Dick Cheney's promises that our forces would be greeted with carnations, not roadside bombs.
It would be a devastating failure for us to leave before we completed the project of restoring order and civil society to a broken and shattered country; to leave would be to let down the Iraqis, and that is not a viable option, morally or strategically.
I think the debate over whether we should be in Iraq is misguided. Whatever the reasons, we are there now, and we should be committed to prosecuting this war as ruthlessly, effectively, and quickly as possible. The administration has erred in underestimating the force and expense needed to fight it the right way; but many democrats are failing us by arguing for an immediate withdrawal, and by harping on the reasons for which we went to war in the first place. The task at hand is to ensure victory, and victory for us means a stable and democratic Iraq, regardless of why we were there in the first place.
After a litany of mistakes and abuses - including the torture at Abu Ghraib, questionable detainment practices, illegal wiretapping, and the feckless and cowardly side-stepping of the Geneva protocols - we need to work hard to restore our nation's legitimacy and to leave a positive legacy in a volatile region. Removing the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, symbolically at least, is a good start.
The monster, himself
No comments:
Post a Comment