Lieberman Defends Surge
Despite the pounding he’s taken from the anti-war Left Sen. Joe Lieberman goes to the Wall Street Journal editorial page and defends the latest effort to pacify Baghdad:
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago–with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security–and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.
He then calls out anti-war Democrats who don’t have the guts to actually cut and run:
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain “readiness” standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, “Enough.” And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war’s conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
What would a pull out from Iraq mean?
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger–forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill–probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
Lieberman makes a valiant attempt, but his words won’t convince the anti-war Left to back down. When netroots-powered Ned Lamont beat Lieberman last year in the Connecticut primary they tasted political blood. The Democrats’ Congressional victory only emboldened them to continue down their anti-war path. The only way to silence them is for the surge to actually be effective. For Iraq’s sake I hope it works.
“The Choice on Iraq“
I hope that Joe Lieberman eventually decides to jump like Jim Jeffords, but this time from Independant to Republican. He may be liberal on social issues, but not on foreign policy (which is the #1 issue in politics).