Who says the US doesn’t have a plan for Iraq? Independent Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman lays out his ideas:
I’ve just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
Lieberman’s “analysis” would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic. His understanding of the Middle East is as sophisticated as his country’s President. He talks about one side being supported by the United States and the other side being aided by Iran. Where exactly do Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt fit into all this? No doubt they’re the good guys (and who cares about a growing Islamist threat in their nations?) Stoic little Israel is clearly on the right side (and let’s not even talk about Pakistan, a rogue US-backed state if ever there was one.)
“Victory” in Iraq (how quaint that Lieberman still uses that term) actually means “noble” defeat (and the execution of Saddam will only make things worse.)
In some ways we should be grateful for Lieberman’s article. If this is the finest thinking on the war in Washington, a welcome US defeat and withdrawal from Iraq is closer than we could have hoped. On the other hand, “liberating the savages” may take a lot longer than Lieberman imagines.