Investor's Business Daily, July 24th, 2007
Iraq: With Congress watching the clock as the artificial September deadline approaches, our military has a victory plan based on reality. Now our leaders must lead -- and explain the need for two more years of patience.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been briefed on a detailed plan to establish "sustainable security" throughout Iraq by the summer of 2009, the New York Times reported this week. U.S. forces commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker reportedly developed the strategy, which aims first at securing Baghdad by the middle of next year, then achieving nationwide stability by mid-2009.
Petraeus' plan seems inspired by the remarkable success in Anbar province -- which until less than a year ago was written off as hopeless -- where the U.S. military has formed an anti-al-Qaida alliance with Sunni chiefs. Violence is down in Anbar, while recruitment to the security forces among the population is up.
Marine Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, who heads coalition forces in Anbar, last week told reporters that the progress there is permanent, and that "we have broken the cycle of violence" in the region.
The new plan will employ a Force Strategic Engagement Cell, which, following the Anbar model, would identify and engage sectarian groups that can be persuaded to renounce violent action. The strategy also, wisely, differs from the thinking of Petraeus' predecessor as top commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, in its lesser expectations of political progress.
So our forces and our strategists in Iraq now know what works, with just one possible missing ingredient in their recipe for victory: time. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding U.S. forces south of Baghdad, recently made it clear it will take him a year to establish security there. Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, our second-ranking commander in Iraq, says it will be November -- not September -- before a proper assessment of the troop surge can be made.
Yet the Democratic presidential candidates in Monday's CNN YouTube debate seem eager to raise a white flag. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both claimed there is no military solution, while John Edwards' priority is to "make this president change course."
One, however, was upfront enough to outline the real philosophy behind Democrats' refusal to let our troops win. Unreconstructed leftist Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio turned Reaganism on its head:
"I say we achieve strength through peace," he declared, "that we'll use the science of human relations and diplomacy ... and that you can work to settle your differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it's absolutely necessary."
But winning the war in Iraq is absolutely necessary. Losing means a new terrorist base in the Middle East that's sure to commit wholesale genocide against the Iraqis and plot to slaughter Americans in our own homeland.
The mid-September "deadline" has been rendered irrelevant. Senators and congressmen now have a duty to rally the country toward a victory over terrorism in '09.
