I was one of the few conservatives that I know who publicly opposed the notion that we ought to go to war in Iraq before that war began. I have been guarded in my criticism since then, largely because I am from the old school when it comes to political philosophy, namely that politics stop at the water’s edge. Where American forces are involved in a shooting war, they need our full support-Vietnam showed what can happen when we allow ourselves to be divided at home once a war actually begins. In addition, our leaving both Korea and Vietnam before the job was done did far more damage to our international reputation (we became known as a nation that gives in when the going gets tough) than engaging in an unpopular war did.
However, the way this war has been fought shows why the few conservatives who opposed it did so. The first Gulf War was so successful largely because the U.S. infused massive numbers of troops (well over 400,000-when all allied forces were counted, the number neared 500,000) and equiped those forces with the very best armor and military technology that was available. We out-manned what was, at that time, the 4th largest army in the world, and we gave our men and women in uniform the very best we could offer them to help them in their quest for victory.
This time around, we fought the war with less than half the troops we had in the first go-round, and the President went into war allowing the massive military cuts of the Clinton administration to go ahead unimpeded, after promising in the 2000 election campaign that he would make our military ready to fight a two-front war if need be.
Just how realistic does the President think it is to fight a two front war with mostly worn-out National Guardsmen with poor equipment?
There are times that I wish I would blog all of my dinner conversations, such as the pre-war conversation I had with my good friend Aaron Harris of Listen to the Lion. I remember telling Aaron that Iran was a far greater threat to the U.S. than Iraq, and that they might even be proven at some point to have a tie-in to 9/11, because Iran has a history of being the state-sponsor for many an act of terrorism against Americans-the Tehran Embassy in 1979 and the TWA hijacking in the mid-1980’s being just two notable incidents. I also pointed out in that conversation that Iran was likely developing nuclear weapons and would have no trouble using them or letting terrorists use them against the U.S. I said we needed to occupy Tehran before we ever thought about Baghdad.
Well, lo and behold, I have been proven correct. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon (if they do not already have several) and there are "Death to America" rallies on the streets of Tehran quite frequently. What’s more, the nuclear option is the mullahs’ best chance to hang on to power, as recent election campaigns have shown there is significant internal opposition to the state that is severely oppressed by the Ayatollah and his henchmen. Where do you suppose American troops might be likely to be viewed as liberators?
All we can do now is talk about economic sanctions against Tehran, because our over-stretched and underfunded military is too busy in Iraq.
whereIstand Tags