This page was last updated on June 16, 2004.

Long haul; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 27, 2004.

The editorial comes to the right conclusion about the need to stay the course in Iraq, but bashes the Bush administration and our efforts every step of the way.  As you will see in the following detailed critique, the editorial is long on bashing, but short on accuracy and logic.

“President Bush is right.  The United States must help the Iraqi people establish a stable, functioning government.

“But how to get from here to there is the question.  So is whether Bush should be the one to get us there.

“In a prime-time speech on Monday, the president outlined five steps that he said would help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom: transferring authority to a sovereign new Iraqi government on June 30; helping establish security in areas still gripped by chaos; urging broader international support; reconstructing the country; and setting up national elections.

“The president also made it quite clear that American troops will remain in Iraq until the mission is accomplished.

“Does the administration have the international credibility it needs to achieve this goal?  No one can say for sure, but this administration has a lot of bridges that it burned that need to be rebuilt.  The United States can only hope and pray that the United Nations, especially France, Russia and Germany, is willing to provide an international veneer to the rehabilitation of Iraq.”

[RWC] The United States, along with its allies in Iraq, is one of the few countries with credibility.  We did and are doing what we said we would do.

Remember that most of the U.N. members are anti-democratic states.  Remember it was the U.N. that helped Saddam Hussein steal from the “oil for food” program that was to provide food and medical care for Iraqis.  Remember it was the U.N. that kept passing resolution after resolution saying Iraq must cooperate “or else,” but refused to back up the threat.  Is that credibility?  As a result, Iraqis tend to view the U.N. with contempt.

In the specific cases of France, Germany, and Russia, we’re learning their positions with respect to Iraq were likely influenced by illegal trade with Saddam Hussein.  Further, what makes these countries so important?  What have these countries ever done for the United States?  Both Germany and Russia (U.S.S.R.) wanted to enslave the world including the United States.  Incredible sacrifice was all that stopped those plans and then the United States helped rebuild our previous enemies.  In the case of France you can talk about the Marquis de Lafayette during the American Revolution over 200 years ago, but the United States has rescued France at least twice during the last 90 years.  The graves of nearly 60,000 American soldiers from World Wars I and II on French soil should be ample proof France owes the United States; we owe France nothing.

“The president will be in Europe trying to do just that in the coming weeks.  For the good of the U.S. forces and the Iraqi people, Americans of all political stripes must hope that his powers of persuasion work.”

[RWC] In truth, Democrat Party leadership hopes we fail in Iraq as long as President Bush is in office.  Just read and listen to the borderline treasonous rhetoric coming from the mouths of Democrat leadership.  Are the words of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) those of someone working for success?¹

“This support is not the same thing as washing the slate clean for this administration, which, in its antinomian hubris, has massively screwed up at virtually every step of the way.  It has a lot to answer for because much of what the president is trying to achieve should have been in place 14 months ago.”

[RWC] The Times should provide examples of the Bush administration immoral pride or self-confidence (antinomian hubris).  To its detriment, the administration tends to downplay its many successes.

The Times should also provide examples of screwing “up at virtually every step of the way.”  Were mistakes made?  Of course.  No war is devoid of mistakes.  You cannot take on an endeavor like this without missteps because there is no way to know everything.  The best you can do is develop a flexible plan that allows for resolution of the unpredictable.

“Establishing security in areas still gripped by chaos?  As James Fallows reported in ‘Blind into Baghdad’ (The Atlantic Monthly, January/February), the Army wanted to attack Iraq with an invasion force of 400,000.²  Eventually, some 200,000 troops were massed against Iraq, enough for a successful invasion but far too few for an occupation force.”

[RWC] I am not a military expert so I will not comment directly on what a proper manpower level should have been or should be.  All I will do is remind everyone that so-called military experts predicted disaster with the amount of manpower used in the “major” combat operations phase.  What we saw was anything but disaster for the United States.

The editorial failed to note Mr. Fallows is a close friend of Ralph Nader and a Gore supporter.  I do not say his ideology affected his story, but disclosure is always nice.

“Urging broader international support?  The administration’s pre- and post-invasion scorn for the United Nations, especially France and Germany, needs no further comment.  Its arrogance makes it much harder to gain their assistance in internationalizing the occupation.

“Reconstructing the country?  Again, this administration’s past will come back to haunt it.  It thumbed its nose at international cooperation too many times to win friends and influence people easily.”

[RWC] On what planet do these folks live?  President Bush tried from the beginning to involve the U.N. and sponsored and won U.N. resolutions.  The anti-Bush press likes to use the word arrogance with respect to the Bush administration.  When did it become arrogant to stand by your principles?  Speaking of arrogance, let us not forget who -- France, Germany, and Russia -- attempted to bully countries leaning in the direction of the United States.  In one case, France threatened countries in line to join the European Union.

In case the Times missed it, we are not in Iraq alone.  If the following does not represent international cooperation, what does?³

• 49 countries are publicly committed to the Coalition.

• The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.

• Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.

• Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.

• The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.

Is it only cooperation when France, Germany, and Russia jump in?

“And even if the president does achieve all five goals, success is not guaranteed.  If history has taught us anything, it is that nothing is as it seems in the Middle East.

“Given this uncertainty, Americans must understand that there is no pulling out of Iraq.  No matter who takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, the United States must stay the course in Iraq.  We broke it, we bought it.”

[RWC] I do not know how the Times comes to the conclusion that we “broke” Iraq.  Any rational person knows Iraq was broken for decades.  It filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims, attempted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush, warred with and invaded neighbors, used chemical weapons against enemies and citizens alike, set Kuwait oil fields afire, housed terrorist training camps, funded terrorists, et cetera.  If that is not broken, what is?

1. Pelosi questions Bush’s competence; Ted Barrett and Sean Loughlin; CNN.com; May 21, 2004.

2. Blind into Baghdad; James Fallows; The Atlantic Monthly; January/February 2004.

3. Who are the current coalition members?; The White House; February 4, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.