USA TODAY International Edition
What we won’t agree on: Iraq
But let’s set the parameters for future confrontations Common ground Bridging the partisan divide in Washington
Today: The war in Iraq and the future of U.S. military intervention.
Cal: As I understand the Democrat position, Bob, you guys oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq because the war was based on a faulty premise: the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s probable intention of using them. Do I have that right?
Bob: You do not, my friend. Most Democrats, including Bill Clinton’s national security advisers, believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It was assertions by President Bush that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and by Vice President Cheney that the Iraqis assisted terrorist operations of al-Qaeda before 9/ 11, that Democrats believe were outright false. Bush and Cheney knew intelligence was shaky before we invaded Iraq. Once the true picture began to emerge on the ground in Iraq, a war that was launched on national security grounds conveniently became a war to liberate the Iraqi people.
Cal: President Bush saw the need to topple Saddam to end his regime’s threat to his own people and to us. You Democrats used to be liberators and interested in freeing oppressed people. Remember JFK’s great line from his 1961 inaugural address, “ Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” That was visionary, and it embodied what America stands for.
Bob: If we’re in the liberation business, Cal, why don’t we liberate the oppressed people of North Korea, or the Sudan, or any number of countries ruled with an iron * st? It was candidate Bush in 2000 who said over and over that the U.S. should not be in the nation- building business. We can not be expected to shed American blood and billions of dollars to police the world.
Cal: If we could only go back to 2000, before we were attacked. The world has changed, and we have changed. The president has wisely concluded that we no longer have the luxury of waiting until we are attacked before acting. America may not be able to liberate every oppressed nation, but those we can, we should, with the help of its citizens. What about those brave Iraqis who have risked their lives to vote for a government of their own? What about Saddam’s rape and torture rooms? Have we no responsibility to stop that?
Bob: We went to disarm Saddam and his military machine. We’ve done that and more. We stayed while an interim governmentwas elected and while a constitution
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often ! nd common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington can’t. was drafted and rati * ed. Next month, Iraq will elect a permanent government. We have lost more than 2,000 brave soldiers and spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Enough! It is time for us to come home.
Cal: Not until the job is done, Bob, or we invite more dead — ours and others. Our enemies have seen us cut and run before, and they believe they can make us do it again. Give Iraq more time. They had 30 years of Saddam. They can’t create a successful army in just three years.
Bob: You know, this cut- and- run line by you people on the right is getting worn out. We have been in Iraq almost three years. . . . We have trained and equipped a new army despite the Bush administration’s stupidity in disbanding the entire Iraqi army after we drove Saddam from power. A stable Iraq is important to the Arab countries in the region. Let Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan — su pposed U.S. allies — do their part. They have let us shed blood and money while they sit on the sidelines.
Cal: Those countries have de facto dictatorships. You can’t really think they would encourage a democracy so close to their borders. This is a world war against Islamic fascism that is not going away, no matter what we do. Just as Israel wins no points from its enemies for its many unilateral concessions, U.S. interests can only be damaged if we fail to follow through and defeat the enemies of freedom in Iraq. You can be sure, Bob, that if we lose this war, or pull out prematurely, it will only encourage our enemies to come after us with even more resolve, most assuredly on American soil.
Bob: Has it occurred to you that
if we get out, the
justi * cation for
foreign terrorists
in Iraq goes away?
The longer we stay,
not only do we not
win the global war
on terror, we create more terrorists. Enough, already. Maybe after
we get out of Iraq, we can take a hard look atwhat justi * es a future commitment like Iraq. We can’t * ght every battle.
Cal: Foreign terroristswere in Iraq before the * rst American boot hit the
ground. They were being trained before
the 9/ 11 attacks. But much like the rest
of America, we can’t see eye- to-eye on
the U.S. role in Iraq. Let’s look beyond thiswar for common ground.
Bob: What do you have in mind?
Cal: Americans would bene * t from a
debate on what our role in the world
should be, when we should send troops abroad and which battles are worth * ghting. If we had that debate and reached some consensus, any president
acting on such a consensus might * nd a
majority supporting him. The resulting
unity would be more effective in defeating an enemy, as opposed to the encouragement they get when we are divided.
Bob: This war has clearly divided
America. That said, I like the idea of a debate on what should be the parameters of our next overseas engagement. It’s tricky, of course. Itwould require past and current policymakers, including active and retired military, to be forthcoming about mistakes made and lessons learned from our past and currentwars. But given the fact that we seem to have no current guidelines for engaging U.S. troops and resources, it’sworth a try.
Cal: Indeed. We both know that politicians hate traveling the sawdust trail of contrition. While they are in of * ce, they want us to view them as people with messianic- like authority. But once out of of * ce, they are sometimes more willing, even eager, to speak about decisions they made while in of * ce for the historians and to shape their legacy. Since hindsight offers the best vision, let’s bring in former secretaries of State, generals, former presidents and others with * rst- hand knowledge of wars and con K icts past and present. Make it a public forum, put it on C- SPAN and encourage people to ask questions. Much could be learned and might add to the body of experience and information future administrations need to make better decisions.
Bob: Maybe if those gathered dedicated their efforts as a tribute to veterans of these wars, they could rise above selfinterest and seek national unity. It’s particularly apropos as we prepare to celebrate Veterans Day.
Cal: We couldn’t give a better gift to our veterans or those young Americans who have yet to embark on an honorable career in the world’s greatest military.
Bob: And it’s a gift that’s owed to any soldierwho puts his or her life on the line.
Cal: Without a doubt, Bob.