I just read the transcript of the president’s speech/press conference yesterday and was very impressed with the way in which he described the current situation in Iraq. I thought it was a very fair assessment overall in terms of where we are at, our under-reported accomplishments, our challenges going forward, what victory means, benchmarks for victory in Iraq, and what we need to accomplish in the near term to achieve those goals.
But the best part to me was this exchange with an un-named reporter:
Reporter: And what happens if a full-fledged civil war breaks out?
BUSH: Our job is to prevent the full – full-scale civil war from happening in the first place. It’s one of the missions, is to work with the Maliki government to make sure that there is a political way forward that says to the people of Iraq, It’s not worth it. Civil war is not worth the effort – by them.
That’s the whole objective: to help this government be able to defend itself and sustain itself, so that the 12 million people that voted – they didn’t vote for civil war. They voted to live under a constitution that was passed.
And so we will work to prevent that from happening.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a democracy, for a variety of reasons. And it’s in our interests that the forces of moderation prevail, in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
A defeat there – in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would embolden extremists who would say, You know, we were right about America in the first place, that America did not have the will necessary to do the hard work.
BUSH: That’s precisely what Osama bin Laden has said, for example.
A defeat there would make it easier for people to be able to recruit extremists and kids to be able to use their tactics to destroy innocent life. A defeat there would dispirit people throughout the Middle East who wonder whether America is genuine in our commitment to moderation and democracy.
And I told you what the scenario could look like 20 or 30 years from now if we leave before the job is done. It’s a serious business. And that’s why I say it’s the call of this generation.
And I understand how tough it is, see? But I also said in my remarks, just because the enemy has been to, you know, make some progress doesn’t mean we should leave. Quite the contrary. We ought to do everything we can to help prevent them from making progress, and that is what our strategy is.
I have always said that when Bush speaks from the heart extempoaneously he is at his best. And this answer that he gives to the un-named reporter is the best most succinct justification for why we are in Iraq and why we need to stay until we have achieved ultimate victory there.
And regardless of what the Democrats would like you to believe about this election (that it’s about the “culture of corruption” (Foley), negative GOP ads (Harold Ford), and extremist conservative Christians (who oppose embryonic stem-cell research) the mid-term I believe will be primarily about the #1 issue of our generation- the War on Islamic Terrorism- and despite our challenges in Iraq and elsewhere- I believe that the American people share the president’s view about why we are there and why we must not leave (i.e. “strategic redeployment”). They don’t share Howard Dean’s view that Iraq is “unwinable” or that it is an “intractable quagmire.”
The American people are smarter than the liberals give them credit for. I believe that most Americans think that we can and will win in Iraq if we can unite around this common cause. The problem is that Democrats have been more concerned with victory in November than they have been in ensuring victory in Iraq. And their constant crticisms, bitterness, and sniping has only made it appear as thought the US has been anything but “united” around a common cause which of course has only strengthened the resolve of our enemies who pray on submissiveness, fear, and dissent.
Bush should have been delivering this message more often-which partially explains his 40% approval rating. But it is better late than never. Victory in Iraq means a crushing defeat for the terrorists. One side is for seing it through in Iraq. The other side is for quitting. They call it “strategic redeplyment” but we all know it means “cutting and running” in Iraq (The Democrat’s forte).
It is one thing to have a reasoned debate about tactics and strategy. But the Democrats have crossed the line and have in many people’s opinion actively aided and abetted the Jihadist enemy. Trust me the American people know the difference. And that is the reason that the GOP will retain control of both houses of Congress November 7th.