thedrifter
06-20-06, 06:54 AM
H.D.S. GREENWAY
Cut and run? Hardly
By H.D.S. Greenway | June 20, 2006
LAST WEEK White House operative Karl Rove traveled to New Hampshire to pump up the faithful by telling them that if Democrats had their way, Iraq would have fallen to terrorists. ``When it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running," said Rove.
Never mind that there were no terrorists in a position to take over in Iraq before the US invasion. What struck me about Rove's speech was ``the old pattern of cutting and running" bit. I don't remember that either Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt, had advocated cutting and running in World Wars I and II. If I remember correctly, a good part of the opposition to Roosevelt's efforts to keep democracy alive in Europe came from the GOP.
And wasn't it Dwight D. Eisenhower, the GOP's first successful presidential candidate in 20 years, who campaigned on the promise, ``I will go to Korea" to bring that unpopular war to a close?
For years Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, used to plead with the American people to have patience and stay the course in Vietnam, and he, too, used to fly off to the war zone from time to time to look the latest American-backed leader in the eye. In the end it was a Republican, Richard Nixon, who reversed that policy and set the United States on a course of withdrawal. Another Republican, Gerald Ford, finally presided over the cutting and running.
And in Lebanon, it was Ronald Reagan, Republican, who decided to cut and run when the Marines he had sent ashore were bombed in their barracks.
A Democratic president, Bill Clinton, made the decision to withdraw the forces that his predecessor, Republican George H. W. Bush, had deployed in Somalia, but when Clinton finally decided to engage in the Balkans there was no cutting and running by either party, and American troops are still there.
So it's a little hard to discern what ``old pattern" Rove is talking about. Republicans used to boast that it was Democrats who got us into wars and Republicans that got us out of them.
Of course Rove's mission is divisive politics, not historical truth, and he is only doing his job. If his lapses of short-term memory are un-indictable, so be it with his long-term historical memory.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over when it is wise to stay the course, and when it is wise to withdraw, regardless of which political party is in power or in opposition. There may be a few true believers left in the Bush administration who still think that the adventure to implant democracy in the heart of the Arab world by force of arms was worth the blood and treasure. I believe that most are coming around to the view that some semblance of order, security, and representational politics is the best that can be propped up until American troops can withdraw. The dream of a light unto nations that could transform the region may never have been realizable, but it certainly died in the ineptitude of the invading forces.
President Bush assured Iraqis that when America makes a commitment it sticks to it. But that is not something a politician in a democracy can guarantee. The reality is that when Americans are sufficiently sick of the war, the war will be voted out, no matter what resolutions Congress decides to make.
When Bush made his bold trip to Baghdad last week, I believe the most important thing he told Iraqis was ``seize the moment." For with the arduous, arm-twisting task of finding an acceptable prime minister and forming a Cabinet now completed, this is surely the moment, as Bush said, to ``develop a government of, by, and for the people." It may be impossible, but this is the now-or-never moment to try.
This is also the time for Bush to seize the moment and announce an organized withdrawal and cut the umbilical cord of dependency. For there are no more transitional elections to prepare for. Iraq now has a government, and there are no more rabbits to be pulled out of hats. The Iraq war is unsustainable in America in the long run, and Iraqis will not make the necessary compromises they need to make as long as we are in occupation.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.
Ellie
Cut and run? Hardly
By H.D.S. Greenway | June 20, 2006
LAST WEEK White House operative Karl Rove traveled to New Hampshire to pump up the faithful by telling them that if Democrats had their way, Iraq would have fallen to terrorists. ``When it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running," said Rove.
Never mind that there were no terrorists in a position to take over in Iraq before the US invasion. What struck me about Rove's speech was ``the old pattern of cutting and running" bit. I don't remember that either Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt, had advocated cutting and running in World Wars I and II. If I remember correctly, a good part of the opposition to Roosevelt's efforts to keep democracy alive in Europe came from the GOP.
And wasn't it Dwight D. Eisenhower, the GOP's first successful presidential candidate in 20 years, who campaigned on the promise, ``I will go to Korea" to bring that unpopular war to a close?
For years Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, used to plead with the American people to have patience and stay the course in Vietnam, and he, too, used to fly off to the war zone from time to time to look the latest American-backed leader in the eye. In the end it was a Republican, Richard Nixon, who reversed that policy and set the United States on a course of withdrawal. Another Republican, Gerald Ford, finally presided over the cutting and running.
And in Lebanon, it was Ronald Reagan, Republican, who decided to cut and run when the Marines he had sent ashore were bombed in their barracks.
A Democratic president, Bill Clinton, made the decision to withdraw the forces that his predecessor, Republican George H. W. Bush, had deployed in Somalia, but when Clinton finally decided to engage in the Balkans there was no cutting and running by either party, and American troops are still there.
So it's a little hard to discern what ``old pattern" Rove is talking about. Republicans used to boast that it was Democrats who got us into wars and Republicans that got us out of them.
Of course Rove's mission is divisive politics, not historical truth, and he is only doing his job. If his lapses of short-term memory are un-indictable, so be it with his long-term historical memory.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over when it is wise to stay the course, and when it is wise to withdraw, regardless of which political party is in power or in opposition. There may be a few true believers left in the Bush administration who still think that the adventure to implant democracy in the heart of the Arab world by force of arms was worth the blood and treasure. I believe that most are coming around to the view that some semblance of order, security, and representational politics is the best that can be propped up until American troops can withdraw. The dream of a light unto nations that could transform the region may never have been realizable, but it certainly died in the ineptitude of the invading forces.
President Bush assured Iraqis that when America makes a commitment it sticks to it. But that is not something a politician in a democracy can guarantee. The reality is that when Americans are sufficiently sick of the war, the war will be voted out, no matter what resolutions Congress decides to make.
When Bush made his bold trip to Baghdad last week, I believe the most important thing he told Iraqis was ``seize the moment." For with the arduous, arm-twisting task of finding an acceptable prime minister and forming a Cabinet now completed, this is surely the moment, as Bush said, to ``develop a government of, by, and for the people." It may be impossible, but this is the now-or-never moment to try.
This is also the time for Bush to seize the moment and announce an organized withdrawal and cut the umbilical cord of dependency. For there are no more transitional elections to prepare for. Iraq now has a government, and there are no more rabbits to be pulled out of hats. The Iraq war is unsustainable in America in the long run, and Iraqis will not make the necessary compromises they need to make as long as we are in occupation.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.
Ellie