Don’t Doubt Bush - Iraq will be strong and free

NY Press ^ | 11-04-03 | Russ Smith AKA MUGGER

[veronica]

Sixteen years ago an extraordinarily wealthy pop music star, still clutched in 2003 to the cultural bosom of liberals and "progressives" throughout the United States, concluded a breathtaking song with two lines that today define George W. Bush’s resolve in bringing democracy to Iraq. Bruce Springsteen, who’s called for Bush’s impeachment at recent concerts, wrote in "Brilliant Disguise": "God have mercy on the man/Who doubts what he’s sure of."

As I write on Monday morning, it’s obvious that this week will be one of the worst of Bush’s presidency. Democratic presidential candidates–let alone windbag defeatists like Sens. Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer–will put fingers in the wind and then blast the administration’s ongoing liberation and reconstruction of Iraq.

Gen. Wesley Clark sprinted out of the gate, declaring just hours after a U.S. military helicopter was shot down not far from Baghdad that Bush, the man he praised for leadership just after Saddam Hussein was deposed last spring, is a failure. At a campaign appearance in San Francisco, according to the Nov. 3 New York Sun, Clark said to a receptive audience: "[T]here is still no success strategy, there is no plan, there is no leadership. Where is the leadership? Where is the accountability?" Working the crowd for sure applause, Clark said if he defeated Bush next fall, he’d relieve Paul Bremer of his post in Iraq and also disallow Halliburton from doing business there.

I’m assuming that Sen. John Kerry, who must be in shock (or denial) that his campaign is going nowhere, will offer meaningless criticism that Bush and his cabinet need to foster better relations with France, Germany and Russia. Like Kerry, that’s yesterday’s news.

Meanwhile, it’s imperative that Bush reaffirm, probably in a national address, his unwavering conviction that America will not back down from its responsibility in Iraq, a morally correct war that’s vital to the security of this country and the entire Middle East. He has to communicate more effectively that the invasion wasn’t a hit-and-run operation, that democracy can’t be established in Iraq overnight.

It’s a war: Soldiers are killed, an unspeakable tragedy for their families, but it’s for an historical and noble cause. There will be more bad days, and weeks, in Iraq, but any sign of equivocation will result in utter chaos, from which the region won’t recover for decades to come. Bush has a unique window of opportunity in which to bring stability, economic strength, freedom and civility to a part of the world that’s been chronically repressed and devoid of hope. When, in time, Iraq becomes a flowering democracy, the ripple effect in neighboring countries is sure to follow.

The New York Times didn’t editorialize about the downed helicopter and latest loss of life in Iraq on Monday–you’d think one of the paper’s editors could’ve been roused from his or her country home to comment on the events–but William Safire did weigh in with common sense. Anticipating the predictable outcry from Democrats and the mainstream media, Safire concluded his column by saying, "We will help Iraqis win the final war against Baathist terror. Failure is not an option."

The Daily News, on Monday, also got it right. The lead edit read: "[T]he struggle in Iraq is greater than a contest over a single country. It is also why the entire nation of Iraq must be recognized as a war zone, as dangerous as any battlefield and requiring stepped-up aggression and vigilance.

"We are doing the work of the Almighty by whatever name you choose in relieving the suffering of an abused people while battling evil on its own turf. May the families of the lost find inspiration in the bravery of their loved ones and solace in the rightness of the fight."

[Pokey78]

Bump!

[Naspino]

The problem with Iraq is that its surrounded by countries that hate the United States and want to impose an intolerant religious code on its people. It is RIDICULOUS to me that we've allowed Afghanistan to setup judges on its supreme court that rule that television is offensive to Allah and thus banned and women that compete in beauty pageants are banned and destined to hell. What exactly did we fight there for if less than a year later they are just rebuilding the Taliban through the judiciary.

[Blzbba]

"What exactly did we fight there for if less than a year later they are just rebuilding the Taliban through the judiciary."



Excellent question.

[Blzbba]

"What exactly did we fight there for if less than a year later they are just rebuilding the Taliban through the judiciary."



Excellent question.

[Blzbba]

"What exactly did we fight there for if less than a year later they are just rebuilding the Taliban through the judiciary."



Excellent question.

[steve50]

What exactly did we fight there for if less than a year later they are just rebuilding the Taliban through the judiciary.

Dope and oil pipeline routes would be my guess. If it's not about freedom it has to be about money.

[Naspino]

Thank you...thank you... thank you....

[Naspino]

Dope and oil pipeline routes would be my guess. If it's not about freedom it has to be about money.

Well devastating an enemy and then leaving has an advantage so long as we're willing to go back again and again everytime they get a foothold. I think the chances of us starting operations again in Afghanistan are nil though.

[CDHart]

I vote for the oil pipeline. My brother has been keeping articles re pipelines in that area, and it's interesting how the countries that might stand (or might have stood) in the way include Afghanistan and Iraq.