The Bush paradox
The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" — and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies ...
The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" -- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."
The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" — and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."
Whatever one thinks about the decision to invade Iraq, it is hard to disagree with Bush that if America left Iraq with its tail between its legs, the global jihadi movement would receive a huge boost. Just consider the respect accorded to Nasrallah for Hezbollah not getting beaten inside a week by the Israelis.
So, why does Bush not send more troops to Iraq? As Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol, the editors of the two conservative opinion magazines that matter, argued in the Washington Post yesterday, it is quite clear that "[m]ore U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment."
Intriguingly, Rich Lowry met with Bush yesterday and blogged about Bush's view on this very question. Bush defends himself by saying that he isn't going to second-guess his generals on the ground. But when you consider that the U.S. Army is sacrificing Anbar province to try and save Baghdad, it is hard not to conclude that Bush needs to finally deal with this long-standing problem.
Much was made of the fact that Bush read Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime before ordering the invasion of Iraq. Cohen's central argument is that, as war is ultimately the continuation of politics by other means, civilians must take charge. It is time for Bush to put Sartre back on the shelf, and re-read Supreme Command if he is to save his presidency and Iraq.
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
