|
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=18827653&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Bush Links
Diagnosis And Treatment: The Immediacy Of Defeating Islamists
By ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, For
The
Bulletin
09/18/2007
President Bush dropped the other
shoe. Articulated during his first term, the Bush Doctrine called for America to
oppose those who harbor terrorists. Now, detailed during his second term, the
Bush counterinsurgency calls for America to oppose Islamo-Fascism worldwide.
Urgently.
Reagan won the Cold War. Bush
wants to win the Western Civilization War. But he doesn’t want to appear
alarmist, for he can’t risk outdistancing the citizenry.
Consider his predicted “Return on
Success,” returning successful troops. Critics compare it unfavorably to our
having been stationed for a half-century on the South Korean peninsula. But they
must admit the existential threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program was
defused, in part, by such sustained commitment. And they cannot deny that
America’s East Asian presence never initially provoked these anachronistic
communists to conjure this failed defiance strategy.
Also, consider the latest
incarnation of the Democrats’ anti-war rhetoric: “The post-surge status will be
identical to the pre-surge state, despite the absence of any demonstrable
political gains in the Iraqi parliament.” They are palpably disingenuous on both
counts.
First, the goal is to maintain an
undeniably improved post-surge status with an enhanced Iraqi military - a goal
for which Democrats previously clamored - despite implementation of this more
aggressive policy only during the past summer. Second, there is significant
ferment at all levels of the Iraqi government, characterized by delayed
mirroring of the “bottom-up” strategy by the “top-down” approach. In many
respects, such progress is irreversible - as long as we nurture its evolution.
Health Of Robust Debate
News articles from sources ranging from the New York Times to the Voice of
America have detailed cacophony emerging from a pluralistic legislature. Whether
the issue is re-Baathification, oil revenue or provincial elections, stridency
and compromise admix as individuals and coalitions punch, duck and weave. Cannot
such give-and-take reflect a vibrant political discourse?
Disclaimer: Data cited herein are neither defamatory nor treasonous, knowingly
false nor inappropriately subsidized. This contrasts with the unprofessional
publication by a venomous Times this last Monday of the infamous
anti-Petraeus ad sponsored by MoveOn.org. It propagated knowingly-false
information when it claimed “deaths by car bombs don’t count,” directly
contradicting a news article in the Times that had stated, two days
prior: “Victims from car bombs are treated as sectarian casualties if the attack
appears to be directed at a sectarian or ethnic group.” And it provided an
in-kind contribution to anti-war Democrats to the tune of $116,000, as per the
New York Post: “MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the
full-page missive - compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually
$181,000 for such ads.” (The Times’ subsequent rationalization that this
discount is offered for multi-day ads also fell flat, for the ad ran only once.)
In any case, myriad articles show
that due-diligence deliberation of these three generic benchmarks appears to be
climaxing, providing the basis for the very enduring relationship that President
Bush envisions.
Regarding re-Baathification,
despite the absence of a formalized policy, it’s already happening. And the
Shiite leadership is no longer diametrically opposed; rather, it is now shaping
the degree and pace of this process within Baghdad. Saddam is gone, and Chemical
Ali is soon to follow.
Thus, as fear of a return to
Sunni hegemony fades, they are emboldened to share power with former enemies for
the betterment of the Iraqi people.
Regarding oil revenue, the mainstream media have failed to report that one such
bill was, indeed, adopted by the parliament this past July. There can be no
formulaic breakout for all those clamoring for a definable “numerator” of the
equation until, first, the “denominator” has been established. Meanwhile, both
the Kurds and the national government are proceeding, with the former
contracting with Hunt Oil in a fashion consistent with the draft legislation
approved by the Iraqi cabinet and the latter providing necessary provincial
support from ongoing production.
Regarding balloting, a fourth
round of elections has been delayed due to administrative concerns, both real
and perceived. There is a fundamental need to complete a detailed census, but
there is also a tug-of-war regarding the degree to which Saddam’s forced
population shifts should first be reversed. Specifically, Saddam “stuffed the
ballot box” of Kurdish Kirkuk - his hometown - with transplanted Arabs.
Behavioral maneuvering for “advantage” in this environment is no different in
this arena as it is in America. Posturing is inevitably intended to reassure
(internal) supporters while engaging in (external) suasion. We must remain
committed to the negotiation process that would portend adherence to whatever
agreement would emerge. The focused American challenge is to remove the
component of any tinge of future governmental instability throughout this
process, leaving no party tempted to try to leverage an advantage by envisioning
departure of the 36-nation coalition force. All players must be motivated by the
unambiguous intent of the Iraqi Constitution’s charge:
“We are the people of the land
between two rivers, the homeland of the apostles and prophets, abode of the
virtuous imams, pioneers of civilization, crafters of writing and cradle of
numeration. Upon our land the first law made by man was passed, the most ancient
just pact for homelands policy was inscribed, and upon our soil, companions of
the Prophet and saints prayed, philosophers and scientists theorized and writers
and poets excelled.”
Inevitable Implications For American Security
Is this worth $10 billion monthly and 3,600 lives? President Bush has adopted
Natan Sharansky’s model, namely, that the dissemination of democracy will
inevitably serve as the bulwark against hegemony worldwide. And there is no
doubt that he’s been working to break the axis of evil by the end of his
presidency. That’s why, for example, the “soft partition” model championed by
Sen. Joseph Biden is fundamentally flawed. While inviting regionalization
consistent with Article 62 of the Iraqi Constitution, Mesopotamia mustn’t be
trisected. This would inevitably empower Iran (and Syria) geopolitically,
permitting those vermin to divvy up hegemony over a demonstrably weakened set of
oily spoils. And we cannot cede sanctuary to brutes who seek a worldwide
caliphate.
Iraq’s heterogeneity confers a unique strength, the nature of which it is in
America’s interest to nurture. Our durable strategy is predicated on realistic
assumptions, illustrated by Kurdistan. On the one hand, Turkey would not
tolerate its becoming totally independent. But, on the other hand, it is
thriving culturally and economically without shirking its Iraqi history and
identity. (The Canadian bilingual model has been successfully adopted.)
A pragmatic review of the achievements of the Bush neo-cons yields the
inevitable conclusion that America’s forthrightness is winning reluctant
converts. Every country from Morocco to India is more pro-American (except Iran
and Syria) than was the case before 9/11. The European tilt is increasingly
pro-American (noting Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France, superimposed upon
universal support from the countries no longer shrouded by the Iron Curtain).
The global chess game conducted during this millennium has led to our having won
pieces - both pawns and rooks - against World Master opposition (both overseas
and inside the beltway).
Deferred, here is exploring the
degree to which Bush’s domestic policies are predicated on the same wholesome
assumptions that have guided him worldwide. His model for both may be based on
the contrast between his having confronted “situational ethics” and the
Democrats having perceived these issues through the prism of “moral relativism.”
He is fighting a war, while the Democrats conceive of a Pax Americana based on
law enforcement.
But he is hastening to leave a safer world for his immediate successor, not just
for future generations. He refuses to engage in the oratory of “blame,” as
neo-isolationists have opined. Iran is in his crosshairs, and it will be easier
to confront these fanatics from next door in Iraq than from offshore in the
Gulf.
And then, having united our planet as best he can, issues such as global warming
will be confronted in a fashion that will cement unity of purpose and of
implementation. If environmentalists merit “the benefit of the doubt,” then so
too do those who fear a nuclearized Ahmadinejad.
Freedom-loving patriots need to adhere to the Bush Doctrine, and this inevitably
must yield gung-ho endorsement of the Bush counterinsurgency.
And a president who neither talks nor walks as might a “lame duck,” undoubtedly,
cannot be viewed as a “lame duck.” As he told broadcast media anchors during a
pre-speech luncheon, he is fixated neither on polls nor legacy.
He is applying bedrock principles while recognizing that time is tight.
Robert B. Sklaroff is an oncologist, hematologist and internist residing in
Abington.
|