Bush: Too Little, Too Late?

Like many of my countrymen, I have been disappointed with President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

I was ambivalent about him starting it in the first place. We had not (and still have not) finished the business of stabilizing Afghanistan and putting Osama bin Laden out of business. There were and are bigger threats than Saddam--Iran, North Korea, and the Afghan heroin trade. And we did not have a good understanding of the cultures and behavior of the Iraqi people.

Once committed in Iraq, however, we are obliged to do the job right. That's a lesson we should have learned from the Viet Nam war. Several mistakes at the very beginning sent our enemies messages of weakness. It was not sufficient merely to disband Saddam's army--we should have captured them and disarmed them. We should have occupied all arsenals, and protected them from theft. We should have come down hard on the looters in Bagdad. We should have located and disarmed all of the 'tribal militias' immediately. We should not have restrained our troops with over-restrictive rules of engagement. If we were not prepared at the outset to send enough troops to demonstrate our strength and our resolve by doing these things, we should not have begun the war. Finally, the president failed to establish programs in our own country to keep us all informed, involved in, and supportive of the war on terrorism.

At first blush, it seems reasonable that President Bush gave President Maliki a voice in our overall strategy, since we expect his forces to participate in carrying it out. But Maliki is beholden for his position to radical Shiites who are part of the problem. He has not followed through on his promises.

In his speech last night, President Bush finally acknowledged some of his mistakes, and he presented a plan that should have been implemented long before this. In waiting so long, Bush not only delayed success in Iraq, but he also lost the support and confidence of many Americans.

--Secure Bagdad by creating "gated communities." This will require more troops, and it will require Maliki to be more active in enforcing security. [I wonder, though, if 21,500 additional troops is enough, and if Maliki will ever come through.]
--Crack down on tribal militias, both Sunni and Shiite. [I don't know what "crack down" means. It should mean disarm them, and jail them if necessary. This requires acknowledging that Muqtada al Sadr is an enemy. Disarm and abolish his militia. Make it clear that he can pursue his goals through the elected government, or he can go to jail.]
--In president Bush's words, set "benchmarks" for Maliki and his government. We can support al Maliki only so much and for so long. If he can not or will not take positive control, then we leave. [I see this as a "timetable," not for us, but for the Iraqi government.]

Bush is right when he says that early withdrawal is not an option. That would leave Iraq to be the world's largest terrorist training ground.

But to succeed, we must deploy enough forces to do the job. We must not send those forces in with over-restrictive rules of engagement. Remember, it's not a game--the bad guys do not follow the rules. They exploit our restraints to their own advantage. We must also insist that the Iraqi government take firm control and stop tolerating sectarian interference, and we must give them more training and assistance to accomplish that.

Many people in our nation seem live with a video game mentality. If the going gets tough, if we encounter losses, if progress is too slow, let's just turn off the game box and listen to some MP3s instead. The determination, resolve, and perseverance that made our country great seem to be fading. What we cannot afford, Mr. President, is to let determination and resolve turn into blind stubbornness.