|
Ralph Peters is a regular columnist with the New
York Post.
Register here for access to the Post's Online Edition.
 Political
Pullout
A war plan hobbled by raw political powermongering...
[Ralph
Peters] 12/13/05
American troops
are going to leave Iraq. We all agree on that. The questions that
matter are: When will they go? How many will go? And why?
Hawk, dove
or middle-ground American, no one wants to see an endless occupation
of Iraq. The danger comes when anyone, for any reason, attempts
to impose artificial timelines on a withdrawal. Yet, that's
starting to look like the intent on both sides of the political
aisle in Washington.
Most Democrats
want to pull troops out quickly and let Iraq collapse — for
political advantage. It's a shabby, selfish position that would
hand the terrorists a mammoth victory. But there's a similar
danger arising from the Republican ranks, as well.
Contributors
Ralph Peters - Contributor
Ralph
Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 19 books,
as well as of hundreds of essays and articles, written both
under his own name and as Owen Parry. He is a frequent columnist
for the New York Post and other publications. [go to Peters Index] |
The war won't
be lost at this week's Iraqi elections (the third free
ballot held in a country that never had even one until our
troops arrived). But our hard-won progress just might be endangered
by the upcoming mid-term elections in our own country.
Some predictions
are easy. We already know that the additional 20,000 troops
sent to bolster security during Iraq's elections are slated
to come home shortly after the voting. But I guarantee every
reader that, by late-summer 2006, our troop numbers on the
ground will be under 100,000 — down from an average of 137,000.
Whether the
situation warrants the cuts or not.
The Bush
administration is about to do what its spokespersons have accused
the Dems of attempting: Drawing down troop strength for a brief
political advantage.
Republicans
are frightened of losing seats on the Hill. Despite all their
lofty rhetoric, they just may be willing to gamble away Iraq's
future in order to say, "Look, ma! Only 75,000 troops left
in Iraq!"
We don't
need any more premature declarations of "Mission accomplished."
If the situation
warrants a swift reduction, that's great. But decisions on
troop strength must be made by military commanders with Iraqi
dust on their boots. None of us wants to hear Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld putting words in soldiers' mouths again. Trust
the troops, not the mandarins.
The right
force level in Iraq can't be decided by political pollsters — that
bane of our republic. Military necessity should be the sole
criterion.
All of these
issues would have been moot, had we sent enough troops in the
first place. Now the day is long past when more American troops
would help. Iraqis must pick up the fight and risk their own
lives for their country.
But timing
is everything. We can't let the Iraqis become a military welfare
case, expecting American forces to do the serious work indefinitely.
We have to transfer ever more of the load onto Iraqi shoulders.
On the other
hand, if you suddenly dump too much weight on anyone's back,
they'll collapse. The judgment as to how and when to withdraw
our military support must be made by those with first-hand
experience with Iraq's government forces — not by politicians
at their shabbiest.
We needn't
wait until the Iraqis are perfect — they'll never be. And we
must accept that their methods of combating an insurgency are
going to be considerably rougher than our own.
We can't
have it in every flavor — the sooner we leave, the worse the
Iraqis will behave: Iraqis sense the all-or-nothing stakes
far better than hypocritical "human-rights" groups safe at
home in America (Yes, Virginia, Saddam really is Santa
Claus — and those bad Americans put him in a jail!).
The bottom
line is that impatience is a mortal enemy in counter-insurgency
warfare. Pull out too many troops too soon, and every sacrifice
to date may prove in vain.
We also need
to beware lunatic ideas spawned by the charlatans who claimed
that "shock and awe" would defeat Saddam without ground troops,
or that we didn't need an occupation plan. They're back and
arguing that airpower can fill in for soldiers and Marines.
It doesn't
work that way. Much of counter-insurgency warfare is SWAT-team
work on steroids, a combination of working the streets and
up-close-and-personal firepower. And you can't do such work
from 25,000 feet — just ask the NYPD.
Perhaps we'll
legitimately be able to draw down our forces below 100,000
by next summer. If so, we'll all be delighted. But if the situation
continues to demand 120,000 troops or more, we need to focus
on the mission — not on election-year special effects. Defeating
terrorists is far more important than defeating Democrats (who
are perfectly capable of defeating themselves).
Winning House
and Senate seats but losing Iraq wouldn't be a victory for
anybody in America — no matter which party gained. If the administration
makes troop reductions based purely on political calculations,
the Republicans will deserve to lose.
Support our
troops and bring them home — when Iraqi forces are on
their feet. And not one hour before.
Iraq matters.
Far more than the fate of Rep. Grababuck.
-one-
Ralph Peters'
latest book is New
Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy
This
piece first appeared in the New York Post
copyright 2005 - NY Post
Rush
Limbaugh
§
|
