Columnist Pat Buchanan Asks, "Will We Stay the Course in Iraq?"

WND.com | 07-23-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Theodore R.]

Will we stay the course in Iraq?

Posted: July 23, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

After the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks, Ronald Reagan made a cold-blooded decision. Concluding America had no vital interest in Lebanon, he cut his losses and withdrew the Marines.

It was a rare failure of Reagan foreign policy.

Neoconservatives condemn him for not sending an army back into Beirut to deliver street justice and show Islamic radicals that the American Superpower could not be assaulted with impunity.

Reagan's decision, say the neocons, convinced radicals that America lacked the courage and perseverance to be master of the Middle East. Clinton's pullout after the "Blackhawk Down!" firefight in Mogadishu, Somalia, they say, confirmed the radicals' perception.

Where the Russians had fought in Afghanistan for a decade, the Americans had cut and run after the first bloodlettings. This, say the neocons, led to Osama's murderous miscalculation of 9-11.

Their argument cannot be dismissed. It is the whimpering dog that gets kicked. But there is a counter-argument. Neither in the Levant nor Somalia was there a vital U.S. interest. Whether Christians, Muslims or Syrians controlled Lebanon, whether Mohammad Aidid or some other warlord ran Somalia, did not imperil U.S. security.

Reagan's liberation of Grenada did affect vital interests. It swept a Soviet pawn off the board, exposed Moscow's impotence in the Caribbean, humiliated Castro and delivered a psychological blow to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who now knew that, should the Americans come, no one and nothing could save them. It was a victory in the Cold War, our war.

Which brings us to Iraq and predictions we may have to stay on and fight a guerrilla war for five or 10 years. Has anyone really thought this through? Has anyone calculated the probable price in billions and blood to bring "democracy" to Mesopotamia?

Certainly, Iraq is not Vietnam, where we lost 150 soldiers a week for seven years. Our casualties are coming at the rate of one a day. But media coverage is beginning to resemble the Vietnam of our nightmares.

The 24-hour-a-day cable TV networks are providing instant coverage of every sniper attack or ambush that kills an American. Cable TV also offers a daily forum for debate between those who want to persevere and those who say we should never have gone in.

That daily barrage of negative news and commentary about Iraq is already having the impact years of negative news and commentary from Vietnam had on the home front and troop morale. In the 10 weeks since the president made his Top Gun landing on the USS Lincoln, which was flying the streamer "Mission Accomplished," America has begun to sour on the war.

Newspapers and networks are saturated with stories of soldiers being ambushed, wounded, killed; of troops anxious to return home; of Shiites turning against the occupation; of rising costs and falling support for President Bush. A growing minority now says the war was a mistake and we should never have fought it.

Anyone who thinks Americans will stoically accept this for five or 10 years, or even two years, does not know this country. If TV coverage continues of Iraqis confronting U.S. troops, dancing around burned U.S. vehicles, demonstrating for us to get out, Americans – an impatient lot – will be only too happy to accommodate them.

President Bush has a grave problem. To date, no Saddam tie to al-Qaida has been established, no weapons of mass destruction, nukes, nuclear facilities or Scuds found. And Gen. Franks' planning for war appears to have been as brilliant as the planning for peace was botched.

No one seems to have prepared, or prepared us, for the kind of bloody long-term commitment we now face, and Americans will not accept that commitment unless told why. And why should we? If Saddam and his WMD were ever a threat, they surely are not now. Americans need answers to these questions.

If the Iraqis want us out, why stay? If it was necessary to go to war to disarm Iraq, why is it necessary to remain, now that Iraq is disarmed?

How is the War on Terror advanced by an occupation that inflames the Arab world and leaves 150,000 U.S. troops exposed to daily attacks? Were we misled into invading Iraq, to place our soldiers in a killing field of our Islamic enemies?

President Bush may reach another conclusion, but he had best think this through – as he and his aides did not, before they went in. For even a superpower must be mindful of the card shark's counsel in Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler."

"You have to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away, Know when to run."

[EggsAckley]

Wonder what this windbag has to say TODAY, after the deaths of the evil sons.

[finnman69]

FIFTH Columnist Pat Buchanan Asks, "Will We Stay the Course in Iraq?"

[deport]

Anyone who thinks Americans will stoically accept this for five or 10 years, or even two years, does not know this country.

---

I wonder if PJB has learned anything about this country since his ill fated presidential runs?

[JohnGalt]

How does that change anything?

[Alberta's Child]

Buchanan has an excellent point here. This is precisely why the U.S. has no business getting involved in military engagements like this -- our leaders are elected by people who have an attention span about as long as a 30-second TV commercial, and anything of this magnitude that doesn't deliver the desired results within a week is going to lose public support in a hurry.

[EggsAckley]

TO THE BUCHANAN BRIGADE:

It matters because the deaths yesterday have moved Iraq much much closer to having a legitimate government and becoming a legitimate nation.

I guess that's not important to some, though.

[liberallarry]

Has anyone calculated the probable price in billions and blood to bring "democracy" to Mesopotamia?

Yes. There's a lot more at stake than "democracy".

No one seems to have prepared, or prepared us, for the kind of bloody long-term commitment we now face, and Americans will not accept that commitment unless told why. And why should we?

The culture that produced 911 is violent, frustrated, angry, and humiliated. They blame us. If we don't change it or destroy it we face endless more 911's - enough of a threat to the destroy the open society so vital to our economy.

There's no other choice. There's no defence against boxcutters.

[JohnGalt]

Did you even read the article?

Do you support leaving an occupation army in Iraq for 'as long as it takes' or do you support 'bringing the boys back home?'

The removal of the two sons more supports the latter, no?

[berserker]

... people who have an attention span about as long as a 30-second TV commercial ...

Some of these people pay attention when needed:

T.J. Kewatt, left, touches the casket of his friend and cousin, Pfc. Edward James Herrgott, as he and others grieved at burial services in Shakopee, Minn., Tuesday, July 15. 2003. Herrgott, 20, was the first Minnesotan killed in the war in Iraq, shot by a sniper while guarding the National Museum in Baghdad, July 3. Kewatt, from Shakopee, was also serving with the Army in Iraq when his cousin was killed and accompanied Herrgott's body home. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)

[Catspaw]

Will the next words out of Pat's mouth be, "Bush faked the deaths of Uday & Qusay to get his polls back up?" That's what the lefties are saying.

[1Old Pro]

The war was justified. We will stay the course.

[JohnGalt]

"There's no defence against boxcutters"

There is a defense, it just goes by the name of Todd Beamer instead of Don Rummy.

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks for the post.

If the American public had been told back in February that U.S. soldiers would be killed while guarding Iraqi banks and museums, I'd venture to guess that public support for this war would have been almost zero.

Heck -- I can't think of too many people who would put their lives on the line to guard American museums from thugs and pillagers.

[Helms]

Buchanan is a proven misfit and a token spokesman for Conservatism and Republicans.
CNN and MSNBC hire these guys to give the Libs. a cleaner conscience.

[mr.pink]

I agree very much with your noting the TV conditioned attention span of too many Americans (everything wrapped up neatly and happily in 30 mins to an hour) as a not to be dismissed dynamic that will come into play as this situation becomes prolonged.

[onedoug]

To paraphrase John Kennedy: "We don't do these things because they're easy. We do them because they're hard."

[Alberta's Child]

To paraphrase Alberta's Child: "If it's not important enough to send everyone, then don't send anyone."

[B.Bumbleberry]

Do you really think that this war was about guarding banks. Buchanan talks about our lack of vital interest in Lebanon and Somalia, then completely ignores our vital interest in the Middle East when discussing our involvement in Iraq.

Radical Islam has been on the rise throughout the Middle East. Terrorism is just one symptom. Both Iraq and Iran were/are trying to get nuclear weapons. Just fast forward in your mind what a fix we would be in if the nut cases took control and cut off oil to this country. Think "trillions" in damages and a cut in our standard of living back about a century if we let it happen. Which we wouldn't/couldn't. We would go to war, no question.

Going into Iraq was a bold strike to nip the problem in the bud. I hate to think of how many lives of American soldiers would be sacrificed if we let the Middle East get out of control. Our presence there now will only be a mistake if we wimp out. Surely anyone with an ounce of foresight can see this.

[elhombrelibre]

Pat wants to inflict another defeat on the Republican Party like he did twice in helping Clinton win. He's helping the Ba'athists in the Democratic Party. He's an egotist and a blowhard.