A Plague On Both Their Houses

Chronicles ^ | November 22, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Irontank]

Gen. William Odom has called the Iraq War the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the United States. Final returns are not yet in, but he may not be far off.

In invading Iraq, we attacked and occupied a country of 25 million that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

Even if, as most believed, Saddam had chemical or biological weapons, there was no evidence he intended the suicidal use of such weapons on U.S. troops in Kuwait, or to hand them over to al-Qaida to use on America, risking massive retaliation. Saddam was never a suicide bomber. He was always a survivor.

After 9-11, we couldn’t take the chance, countered the War Party. Nonsense. We take the chance every day with Iran and North Korea, far more powerful nations, as we did every day of the Cold War against a nuclear-armed Russia and China. They had missiles and WMD. But, like Saddam, they were deterred.

Yet President Bush, prodded by a cabal of neoconservatives who, for their own motives, had been plotting war on Iraq for years, invaded. History will hold him accountable for the consequences.

On the credit side, he liberated the Iraqis from a murderous tyrant. But the cost is high and rising: 17,000 U.S. dead and wounded—i.e., the eradication of an entire American division—$200 billion, the diversion of priceless assets from the fight against al-Qaida, rampant anti-Americanism in the Islamic world, the shattering of our alliances, the division of our nation, and the prospect of a U.S. defeat by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists.

Another cost must be added after a week in which Harry Reid and Co. accused President Bush of lying us into war, Republicans accused Democrats of cutting and running, and Rep. John Murtha accused Bush and Cheney of being chicken-hawks who dodged the draft in Vietnam.

Our leaders are behaving like the leaders of the late and unlamented French Third Republic.

But if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are responsible for the war and its consequences, so, too, are the potential Democratic nominees: Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Bayh. In October 2002, because the country was cheering a commander in chief beating a war drum, they voted Bush a blank check to take us to war. In the fall of 2005, with the people souring on the war, they voted for a timetable to get out.

We were deceived, we were misled, we were lied to, they wail. One only awaits their explanation that they were brainwashed by a C student. The Democratic Party is a poodle of public opinion, unfit to lead the nation.

But if we were stampeded into this war, we must not let ourselves be stampeded out of Iraq by a Democratic Party in panic, scrambling to get out in front of its base. For the cost of retreat and defeat may be far more calamitous than the costs of the present war.

There are at present four exit strategies:

A. The John McCain strategy of sending 10,000 more U.S. troops, taking as long as needed to train the Iraqi army and staying as long as necessary to achieve victory.

B. The Bush strategy of “Stay the Course,” with the present complement of forces staying as long as it takes to win.

C. The exit strategy envisioned in the bipartisan resolution in the Senate last week that passed with 79 votes, calling for Bush to give the Congress benchmarks of success, leading to withdrawal.

D. The Democratic option, supported by all but five Democratic senators, to set benchmarks and a timetable for getting out.

The McCain option is a non-starter, for it is non-credible. Adding 10,000 troops to the 160,000 there will not pacify a Sunni Triangle of 5 million. U.S. opposition to the war is near 60 percent. And if Bush refused to send the troops McCain has wanted for two years, he will not do so now that his support is evaporating. The failure to listen to Gen. Shinseki in 2002 was an irremediable blunder.

As for the Bush policy of “Stay the Course,” with support for the war crumbling in Congress and the country and no light at the end of the tunnel, it is unsustainable. On the other hand, a House resolution, engineered by Republicans, calling for immediate withdrawal was backed by only three members. Cut and run is not an option.

However, there exists a bipartisan consensus for Iraqification—the transfer of political authority in Baghdad and responsibility for the war to the Iraqis. All that remains in dispute is the timetable.

As for the ugliness and acrimony of Washington, it reflects the rage, resentment and shame of men who know they made a horrible mistake, thousands have suffered and died for it, and worse may be yet to come. The truth is both parties failed America. What the Greatest Generation won, the baby boomers are frittering away

[Irontank]

As with every Buchanan article, a sizable number of Freepers will condemn it without reading it...but, IMO, he's right on when he writes:

Another cost [of the war] must be added after a week in which Harry Reid and Co. accused President Bush of lying us into war, Republicans accused Democrats of cutting and running, and Rep. John Murtha accused Bush and Cheney of being chicken-hawks who dodged the draft in Vietnam.

Our leaders are behaving like the leaders of the late and unlamented French Third Republic....

As for the ugliness and acrimony of Washington, it reflects the rage, resentment and shame of men who know they made a horrible mistake, thousands have suffered and died for it, and worse may be yet to come. The truth is both parties failed America.

[Irontank]

Ping

[MEG33]

I read the first part of it..and he lost me.

[svcw]

Bush and Cheney DID NOT DODGE the draft.
The VP had a deferment.
The President served in the National Guard.
They DID NOT DODGE the draft.
It is unbelievable that conservatives(?) even repeat this drivel.

[msnimje]

Pat Buchanan has EARNED the reputation of being unworthy of serious consideration.

[SedVictaCatoni]

However, there exists a bipartisan consensus for Iraqification—the transfer of political authority in Baghdad and responsibility for the war to the Iraqis. All that remains in dispute is the timetable.

In other words, everybody agrees that what President Bush is doing is the right course of action, they're just complaining that it has to be done at all.

[sarasota]

Can't read the blathering from another negative spin doctor.

[furquhart]

Anyone who opposes this war is a traitor, pure and simple.

Shame on us for not having acted against treason and sedition earlier.

The great lesson of Vietnam and Iraq is that we cannot trust the left to be running around, free to say whatever they wish, as we fight the enemy overseas. Liberals - and those alleged 'conservatives' who oppose this war - are a cancer on free people everywhere. That cancer is quickly metastasizing - spreading to and destroying previously health tissue, previously rational minds.

[stylin19a]

Adding 10,000 troops to the 160,000 there will not pacify a Sunni Triangle of 5 million.

Unless it's 10,000 Marines.

[rhombus]

Is Pat Buchanan still a member of Ross Perot's "deformed" party?

[Ninian Dryhope]

"In invading Iraq, we attacked and occupied a country of 25 million that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have."

True, but he have killed lots of mudslimes and in the process have shown the world that when we are attacked that we are not afraid to throw our weight around. We have also shown that our soldiers are the best in the world. We have also had the opportunity to train lots of our soldiers and officers in how to conduct war in the middle east.

The attacks of 911 required more of a response then simply taking down the Taliban. We are in a world wide struggle with Islamic Fundamentalism for control of the future and we cannot win this struggle with a defensive only strategy. It is better for us to do the wrong thing, but do it vigorously, than to do the right thing timidly.

[LS]

HUH? So when one side LIES, and the other side says, "YOU'RE LYING," it's the French Republic? Sorry, but Patsy is LYING and he is disgusting. He truly is no conservative. There is a right and wrong in every conflict, and to his eternal shame, he is on the wrong side of the second most important struggle of our lifetime (the first being the Cold War---and now I'm wondering how he stumbled onto the right side there). Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of this man.

[traderrob6]

MSNBC is great at offering themselves up as fair and balanced. ODonnel representing the left, Buchanan representing the right....great way to bash the administration unabated.

[clee1]

Exactly correct.

There is a terrible storm brewing in America. When inevitably unleashed, it will make the Civil War look like romper room.

[dfwgator]

Pat never met a war he liked.

[saveliberty]

I read it. I disagree with him. It was a benefit to conservatives when Rush marginalized Buchanan in the 1980s.

[Schichtel]

GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[trebb]

After 9-11, we couldn’t take the chance, countered the War Party. Nonsense. We take the chance every day with Iran and North Korea, far more powerful nations, as we did every day of the Cold War against a nuclear-armed Russia and China. They had missiles and WMD. But, like Saddam, they were deterred.

I don't know about your assessment any more than I agree with the above excerpt from the article. Taking some chances doesn't automatically make all chances worth risking. Plus, we are much more likely to use really devastating force on enemies such as Iran or N. Korea - all enemies are not equal. Pat is about as useful to the United States as Jimmuh Carter...

[gondramB]

"Anyone who opposes this war is a traitor, pure and simple. "


I disagree -somebody who favors an immediate withdrawal could simply be an idiot with no sense of history or responsibility.

Somebody who thinks that with 20/20 hindsight we should not have invaded when we did, in the way that we did is entitled to that opinion and at this point that probably includes the majority of Americans.

The traitors are the ones making false claims about the government in an effort to undermine the war effort so they can gain political advantage - that is truly despicable. They want failure and they are trying to cause failure - it's a very sick outlook.

[flashbunny]

Here's the problem:

If, before the iraq war, you would have told buchanan or any liberal that we would have overthrown hussein, set up a democratic government, gotten a constitution in place, and set a country on it's way to being an ally instead of an enemy in just about 2 1/2 years with just over 2000 american casualties, they would have laughed at you and said you're being naive and wildly optimistic.

But now that it actually has been done, they're condemning the same accomplishment they would have called impossible before the war.