Iraq's Last Chance?

Last night, President Bush delivered one of his rare White House speeches (White House Transcript here). Not from the Oval Office, but from the Library. In it he described the current difficulties in Iraq, accepted full responsibity for the slow pace of progress and laid out a new plan to move forward.

The White House also offers an outline of key points and objectives in this fact sheet and more details in a PDF file here.

Rather than excerpt large portions of the speech, I will instead count on your fullest attention to two key points:

FIRST: President Bush stated that "Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital [Baghdad]." We will be sending more troops with greater freedom to deal with that problem in conjunction with Iraqi forces. We will also send more troops to Anbar Province to fight Al Queda enclaves.

This means that the vast majority of Iraq's provinces and cities have met the conditions for V I C T O R Y which President Bush has repeated so many times in the past. V I C T O R Y means an "Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself as an ally on the war on terror." Have we heard any "reporting" of this great accomplishment in the lamestream "news" media?

Further success will count on the Iraqi government. And President Bush assures us that Prime Minister Maliki understands that in order to prevail in the greater goal, Iraq's Prime Minister can no longer continue to shelter Shiite death squads which formed in response to Sunni/Baathist provocations of last year.

The proof is in the pudding and the Iraqi government has agreed to a further set of benchmarks such as legislation to assure the sharing of oil wealth and be fully capable of providing security in the remaining Iraqi provinces by next November.

SECOND: The President voiced for the first time a determination to confront Iran and Syria:

THE PRESIDENT: Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Confronting Iran is also part of a larger strategy to deal with Iran's threat to the region as a whole. From the detailed strategy overview I reprint page 4:

The Regional Picture

• Our allies in the region are concerned about negative Iranian influence in Iraq.
  
• Support for the Iraqi Government, however, can help stabilize the region.
  
• Iran has been cultivating influence in Iraq through all means at it's disposal.
  
• Iran's threat involves both lethal action and the burrowing of Iranian actors into Iraqi institutions.
  
• Syrian actions, while posing less of a strategic threat to Iraq than Iranian actions, exacerbate the tactical challenge faced by the Iraqi government.

Democrat's Response: Still Hooked on Defeat

It's predictable, but the Democrats, many of whom were FOR sending more troops before they were AGAINST them are out in force to undermine and obstruct this plan. Do they have an alternative which is anything more than a U.S. pullout?

We have warned time and again that an early pullout in Iraq would be a defeat for the United States that would lead to a bloodbath in Iraq, probable war throughout the Middle East and a reinvigorating of the terrorist threat to the United States and our allies.

When Democrats are asked about their "plan" or questioned regarding what history taught us in Vietnam when the U.S. abruptly walks away from a commitment to victory, they have no answer except a lame attempt to say that Bush's plan won't work.

Would Democrats Be Accountable For Their "Plan?"

If the risks were not so great, I would almost be in favor of allowing the Democrats to have it their way, but on one condition: Insist that Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, who vote for a withdrawal from Iraq under the conditions currently stipulated by the Democrats also sign a legally binding pledge that should the worst consequences of which we have warned occur, then those who voted for withdrawal would resign from office and pledge never to run again.

That would be a high price to pay in order to permanently liberate our political classes of the defeatist appeasing mindset. But when you consider that President Bush and the GOP have been held to account for their "mistakes" wouldn't it be beneficial if that level of responsibility went both ways?