Fickle Interventionists: The terrorists in Iraq are hoping to prevail in Washington

Opinion Journal ^ | 10/31/03 | editorial board

[Pokey78]

The polls show that most Americans understand the coming burden and still favor war; after 9/11 they realize the dangers of ignoring foreign threats. About U.S. elites there are greater doubts. Our liberal pundits and politicians are fickle interventionists; many of them signed on early to topple Saddam but have lately been offering caveats and cavils as D-Day approaches. Will they run for moral cover if the going gets tough, as they did in Vietnam?

[The Raven]

>> But their criticism is so virulent and unconstructive that it is clear they won't let themselves believe that America could win.

This really bothers me. There isn't a sole in the media criticizing the Dem's strategy (yes - it's a strategy - beat-up on Bush and the war).

They've not only brought down Bush's poll numbers, but are chipping away at US resolve on the terrorism war.

So if we need to go after Iran, Syria, or N. Korea - we'll not have a united home front. And not because of clear thinkers - it's because of a strategy to regain power.

The whole thing is unthinkably ugly.

[OESY]

The President took a premature victory lap this spring and failed to anticipate the nature of the guerrilla uprising. After it began, Mr. Rumsfeld waited too long to admit it was a guerrilla war.

Basically the WSJ has good intentions in this editorial, but I part with the Journal over the above quote. Bush thanking the troops after a brilliant military campaign was not premature and it was completely appropriate. Democrats were going to bash him no matter what he did, including if he had not gone and thanked returning troops. It's their strategy of omnicriticism -- all actions, all directions, all the time 24/7 -- nothing positive.

Rumsfeld said the press corps could call the aftermath whatever they wanted, but it did not rise to the level of "Vietnam Quagmire" which is what anti-war anti-Bush types in the media wanted him to acknowledge, a reason to cut-and-run -- proving Democrats were right all along to oppose the war and funding our troops in the aftermath, just like Vietnam when Congress cut off funds.

Whether or not there are indigenous guerrillas protected by local populations and supplied by hostile outside governments matters little because it will be dealt with. In other words, that "nonexistent" plan will evolve to address whatever challenges face our troops. There isn't one single plan but many changing plans with multiple contingency subplans.

The Journal should not be so quick to concede rhetorical points when they have to rely on opposition campaign slogans for evidence to support a claim. The Journal should explain its concerns in a future editorial.