15 JAN 07 / "The President's Plan for Iraq"

In a speech from the White House Library last Wednesday night, President Bush outlined his new strategy for victory in Iraq. The main points of the plan include sending an additional 21,500 troops to the country, adopting a 'clear and hold' strategy in neighborhoods plagued by violence, and establishing a timeline by which Iraq must provide its own security.

The president is right to consider Iraq as the central front in the war on terror, and increasing troop strength in and around Baghdad is perhaps his last best chance to stave off defeat, considering the fact that congressional support for the war is deteriorating fast.

On this point, the president said "The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."

Despite the accuracy of this argument, the Congress is beginning to show signs that it will use its authority to intercede and possible thwart the president's call for an increase in troop levels. And that would prove the beginning of the end.

The framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war because they did not want the United States to be fighting wars that did not have broad public support. Unfortunately, the president's prescient arguments cannot compete with how the war has played in our media. The Bully Pulpit is no match for CNN and the 24/7 news cycle.

This is a public relations war as much as a shooting war, and terrorists and insurgents understand that democracies do not support unpopular wars. Public opinion turned against the president because the American people still do not believe that we live in an increasingly dangerous world of global terrorism.

The United States has only a few months remaining in which to quickly demonstrate progress to prove to the American people that we're getting results in return for the thousands killed in action and for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq. Bet on the insurgents to step up their game accordingly.

In his speech, the president reiterated remarks made in a joint press conference with Tony Blair several weeks ago -- that he alone is responsible for failures in Iraq and the degree of progress thus far has been unacceptable. The administration made a series of mistakes immediately following the successful invasion. Foremost was the policy of not utilizing members of the Saddam's Baath Party to help maintain security. And former Army Chief of Staff Shinseki was correct in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2003 when he said that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure the country. Iraq has been spiraling out of control ever since.

With the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra, Al Qaeda incited civil war between Shia and Sunni; and the achievement of the 2005 elections, in which 12 million Iraqis voted, was effectively undone. Iraq, in its present condition, is ungovernable. We must provide order in Baghdad so the underpinnings of democracy may take root. Of the additional forces, 17,000 are slated for Baghdad and 4,000, mostly Marines, for Anbar Province. The president's new strategy also calls for oil revenue to be distributed directly to the Iraqi people.

The president's speech received mixed reaction in Congress, where Republican support has been wavering. John McCain favors the plan while Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel opposes it. Many Democrats view it as an escalation of the war. The results of the mid-term congressional elections put the president on notice that he doesn't have much time to demonstrate real progress in Iraq. A majority of Americans believe that the United States is losing the war. And, of course, the outcome in Iraq also has implications for the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election.

A rational examination of the facts is useful when presenting an argument for continuing the fight in Iraq. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to dispossess himself of weapons of mass destruction, although no weapons were found. The U.S. and the U.K. have since been trying to help the elected Iraqi government to stand on its own -- an extremely difficult task considering the fact that Islamic terrorists are doing everything in their power to make us fail.

President Bush's first instinct at the outset of the American attack was the right one -- he acted to protect the American people from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

The problem now is the United States may not be capable of conducting military operations in Iran, Syria, and North Korea because we have expended so much blood, treasure, and political capital. In retrospect, and especially because weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, the president should have waited until the threat was more imminent or apparent, although threats rarely are until they materialize. This means we have thrown our punch and are presently caught flat-footed.

The Iraq Study Group reported that the situation is so dire that the country is in danger of descending into an even deeper chaos. An easy solution does not exist, but the consequences to pulling out constitute more of a threat to our national security than the consequences of continuing the fight.