Posted on 12/21/2004 7:06:49 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
I now admit to having expected the war in Iraq to be won in a matter of months, not years. Saddam's plan to disperse his forces and conduct a murderous insurgency, abetted by his terrorist allies, was a surprise.
This by no means suggests that President Bush's decision to overthrow a dangerous despotism was a mistake. On the contrary, it was and is the right war (against a genocidal maniac who was gaining strength) in the right place (the Middle East cradle of terror) for the right purpose (to get the Arab street out of the rut of hatred and onto a path to freedom).
In return for today's grudging concession of tactical misjudgment, however, I claim this expectation: When and if we discover hidden supplies of germ weapons in Iraq or Syria, and as future confessions reveal the extent of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, the legion of war critics will forthrightly admit their certitude was misplaced.
But more to today's point is our difference of opinion about strategy: I stand with those who believe this war was right and that its sacrifices will be justified by lives saved and tyranny diminished. I disagree with those who opposed the pre-emptive fight from the start or who have lost heart when it dragged on too long and are casting about for scapegoats.
Here are criteria to measure success or failure in the battle for democracy in the region and the struggles for freedom around the world:
First, will Iraq stay whole and its people free?
The present answer is: We'll see. The only debate in the U.S. now seems to be about whether to raise the number of our troops there to help finish the job; only a small minority is calling for a pullout. We are committed, as we should be, to success; so are the Iraqi Kurds; we'll see how eager the Shiite majority is to end its long Sunni Baathist subjugation.
Next, has America's huge military engagement in the Middle East helped produce progress toward democracy in Muslim countries where monarchs and dictators now rule?
Signs are that the answer is yes. At a conference last week in Dubai, Gulf states spoke openly of economic reform and a campaign against corruption, which must have worried oppressive theocrats in Iran. Egypt, Jordan and Morocco are beginning to see glimmers of liberty's light, which embarrasses reactionary Saudis and terrorist Syrians. The groundswell is felt in Asia, where populous Indonesia and Malaysia are showing how Islamic nations can prosper by combating medieval fundamentalism.
On top of that, America's decision to stay the course after its overthrow of Saddam - a financial backer of suicide bombers and hero of Palestinian jihadists - has helped revivify the prospect of peace in the Holy Land after the death of Arafat. Our military activism emboldened Israel to risk withdrawal from Gaza, and should encourage Palestinians to elect a rational state maker next month.
A final criterion: Is our confidence in the desire of 20 million literate Iraqis to live in relative liberty being reflected in the recent run of elections in the world?
Australians voted to remain our stalwart ally in Iraq. Afghanistan's voters took their lives in their hands to blaze their trail to a democratic government. Americans voted decisively to endorse our hopes rather than our fears in Iraq. Ukrainian voters refused to let a corrupt regime backed by the power of Russia's Putin deny them their democratic rights; they will most likely assert their independence this weekend.
That will mark four straight victories for those we Wilsonian idealists consider the good guys, with two to go next month in Palestine and in Iraq. One election may be sensibly peaceful and the other bloodily courageous, but our Iraqi commitment has strengthened the trend.
In 1940, Anne Morrow Lindbergh wrote a provocative apologia for fascism titled "The Wave of the Future." President Franklin Roosevelt answered those who believed "that, for some unexplained reason, tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future - and that freedom is an ebbing tide. But we Americans know that this is not true."
Less true now than ever. Once again, America and its allies ensure that freedom is the wave of the future.
Amazing to think this has ever been associated with the NYT. Clear thinking, unlike Howell Raines or his no-name successor.
this has = this writer has
The old boy has cranked out a pretty darn good article.
William Safire has been writing a conservative column for many years at the New York Times but has announced his retirement.
Gee....wonder if some of our "liberal" FRIENDS will bother to read and HEAR this!
Been a good year overall. Add Arafat's death and you can feel change in the air. Some setbacks natural, but overall we've gained ground for freedom's cause. None of this possible without blood, sweat, tears and the courage to remain committed.
This one is a keeper.
bttt
He admitted he voted for Clinton in 1992.
If he did, he screwed up. Do you have a source?
He's conservative.
"How could I have been so wrong as to have trusted the experts." John Kennedy
Actually, he likes to call himself a Libertarian/(small c)conservative. Champions privacy issues most.
He admitted voting for BJ Clinton in a column in the fall-1992. He was so easily conned by the Bubba act.
A real, true conservative will never be allowed to write for the NYT. (Brooks is a mushy neo-con)IMO
The NYT staff must cringe every time Safire puts out new material for the Op-Ed page.
Don't hold your breath on this. They'll probably complain that Rumsfeld didn't buy the gas for the people who delivered the condolence letters to the families of slain soldiers.
-PJ
Does this reply work? Not being a Vet, it may not be my place to make such a recommendation given they are the ones making the sacrifice.
[President Franklin Roosevelt answered those who believed "that, for some unexplained reason, tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future - and that freedom is an ebbing tide.]
Freedom fighters have been here before. Major General Lafayette after serving General George Washington so ably in the American Revolutionary War then went to France to bring similar reforms there. We all remember the anarchy and civil war which eventually ensued with the public guillotines. Lafayette himself had at one point to flee the country. A dictator by the name of Napoleon at one time took power. Eventually the reforms came about, but not after some very difficult and trying times. Even our own American Revolution tettered on the brink of collapse at several points.
The question then arises, "Do we have the staying power to see this thing through?" Has the Iraqi insurgency yet to get the message that we "have not yet begun to fight!" Have the American people been prepared to brace for the fight that may well come? Are we putting in the resources necessary to win? That question seems to be hanging out there waiting for someone to grab the reins and proclaim "there is no turning back."
I'm glad to see the quotes again of FDR from WWII, but we need some quotes for Iraq at Christmas 2004, 60 years after the Battle of the Bulge. Bush has said it, but like the time he first visited outside the World Trade Towers after 9/11 saying a few words of appreciation to the men there, the other firemen kept yelling, "We can't hear you Mr. President," "We can't hear you Mr. President," he grabbed a bull horn, gathered up a fireman, jumped on a vehicle, put his arm around his shoulder and loudly proclaimed, "Well, I can hear you, and they will all be hearing from us soon."
We need to hear you Mr. President, the soldiers need to hear you, the Iraqi people need to hear you and the terrorists need to know we have not yet begun to fight. The President said yesterday that the insurgency was beginning to affect the psychology of the Iraqi people. A message has to be sent that counters this flagging morale. Are we in this thing or not?
The second part I agree is one measuring stick of the success of the war (although the removal of Saddam and his support of terrorism in itself justifies the war in my eyes).
I don't know why we should regard the war as a failure if certain groups in Iraq, particularly including the Kurds, get their way (if the curds get their whey) and break off to form an autonomous democratic republic. Sure it will excite Turkey, but why would that turn the war for Iraqi liberation into a failure?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.