John McCain says U.S. troops could conceivably have to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years or more. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say no, that would be awful. They’d prefer to get out in a matter of months despite what that could mean — genocide and the possible loss of who knows how many American cities.
No doubt McCain was politically stupid in stating the obvious truth that a long-term military presence could be necessary for the good of the United States, but Obama and Clinton have been intellectually stupid in preaching unconditional retreat as a means for our immediate gratification.
It doesn’t seem to matter to them that withdrawal by timetable could leave life-risking allies in Iraq at the mercy of mostly subdued forces that might then rise up and slaughter tens of thousands of them, and that it would be our fault; “an act of commission,” as one commentator has put it, as opposed to an act of neglect.
The peril, after all, derives in part from our intervention there, and it’s hard to imagine something more dishonorable than calling others to our side when it seemed the path ahead would be a relatively easy one, and then deserting them when grave difficulties appeared.
We also have a not-so-tiny self-interest in getting Iraq stabilized and then keeping some troops close by in case quick assistance is needed. Skip away before basic goals are met and you could well hand the country over to al Qaeda, which could then use it as a base for future attacks in the United States, including nuclear ones.
Some express outrage that this possibility should even be raised, but a number of experts have made a convincing case that there is more than a small chance of A-bomb calamity.
Both Clinton and Obama have promised retaliation against anyone detonating a nuclear device in this country, but these are not the days when the spotting of Soviet missiles headed our way would trigger the sending of U.S. missiles the other way, a policy that helped keep all missiles on the ground.
These are instead the days when the means of delivery would more likely be a disguised truck or even a suitcase. We might have no idea who hit us or any means of finding out, and it’s hardly likely we would start blasting other countries for the fun of it, or that the threat of us doing so would deter hate-inspired terrorists confident Allah will bring them ultimate victory.
The Democratic insistence on hazardous surrender is particularly obnoxious at a time when the United States and its Iraqi and other partners havegreatly decreased violence, easing the way toward political accommodations.
It’s true that al Qaeda recently killed dozens in Baghdad by hiding remote-control bombs in the clothing of two mentally retarded women, but it’s also true the group likely turned to this unspeakable tactic because it no longer had young men available for atrocities. As a seized al Qaeda letter says, some Sunni members are fleeing in panic from the group, which is in “crisis’ and facing “total collapse.”
While it’s not certain, we seem to be winning this thing, and we can reduce troops as progress continues. Just as we have kept some forces in Germany and Japan for the 60 years since World War II, we will need to keep some in Iraq for an unknown period, as McCain says. Before we shrink them too much there at intolerable jeopardy, we should yank them out elsewhere.
Examiner Columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He may be reached at [email protected]
