McCain Defends War, Attacks Congressional Defeatists

Cutting to the chase: there are only two possible "exit strategies" in Iraq. Victory or defeat.

Many Congressmen seem to believe there is little difference between them.

The Iraq War, while longer and bloodier than I (and many others) imagined, is in fact moving towards success. "Success" is not the defeat of every single terrorist in the country. "Success" is the defeat of most terrorists in the country, training Iraqis to take the battle to the rest (with American help, increasingly in the form of airstrikes).

The Iraqi army is growing in numbers, morale, and combat effectiveness. And at this moment -- when the number of loyal, effective Iraqi soldiers is eclipsing the number of terrorists and terrorist supporters -- now is the time Congress wants to tell terrorists "You've beaten us; we merely want a 'Decent Interval;' just keep doing what you're doing, and we'll turn the country over to you by a date specified"?

No one wants to be in Iraq "forever." (Although it is quite likely the Kurds will ask us to keep a few bases in their territory, an arrangement beneficial for both them and us.) Bush's plan is not to use the American military in perpetuity to safeguard Iraq. Bush's plan is to train enough Iraqi soldiers so that they themselves can handle terrorism in their own country.

It's a plan that, while costly, has the small virtue of actually seeming to work.

Representative Murtha's plan will work, too, of course. His plan is to give control of Iraq to terrorists. Does he really believe that once an oil-rich state is in the hands of terrorists no further American military involvement there will be necessary?

Really? Sort of like how Afghanistan posed no danger to the United States before 9/11?

Via Hans Bricks, who seems to think that John McCain should be our next President.

Simmer down there, Francis.

posted by Ace at 04:34 PM

| Access Comments