Defining a War

Today I read a thought-provoking article in WORLD magazine (07/21/2007 issue) by founder Joel Belz entitled "Careless ambiguity" about how an "ongoing lack of clarity on Iraq is hurting the president and the country." Belz's main point is that due to a lapse in clear explanation from the President, and the negative misrepresentations of the drive-by media and liberal politicians, many Americans are confused about whether the purpose of the war is "mostly about defending America from further terrorism---or is... about helping the people of Iraq restore their country and building a democracy there." Belz correctly points out that there is great importance in the way that this question of purpose is answered. The people of America, by a large majority, support the defense of American soil and freedom. And, if a strong enough case is made that the war in Iraq was an invasion to remove a dangerous national security threat and is a continuing battle to defeat al Qaida and other terrorists who will otherwise harm American interests and American lives around the world, then Americans will rally strongly to the war effort. However, if it is presented as an attempt at democracy-building in a country that obviously faces major impediments to democratic rule and peace, then Americans will have an increasingly hard time supporting the continued shedding of American blood and spending of American money necessary to accomplishing this goal. For the majority, this comes down to basic human self-interest---we are willing to make sacrifices for our own security, but will eventually reach a limit if those sacrifices are depicted as benefiting another country. Others, like myself, face uncertainty because of our understanding of the American military as a weapon to protect American national security and to fulfill agreements with allies, and not, by and large, as an international police force.

I don't believe, however, that these positions need necessarily be at variance. Here's why--- today President Bush came out very strongly in an excellent speech at Charleston Air Force Base and identified al Qaida the number one enemy in Iraq and of both the Iraqi and American people. (Muchas gracias, by the way, to Rush for airing clips of this speech as I wrote this post.) The President clearly refuted the faulty logic of the ridiculous idea that Iraq is the reason for terrorism, pointing out the numerous incidents of anti-American terrorism that occurred long before the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. He stated strongly that our troops are having success in fighting al Qaida and that we must give them time to defeat these and other terrorists, because it would be "dangerous for America and the world" to withdraw prematurely from this battle. He stated very clearly why Iraq is necessary to American security---

"Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.
If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation.
We've already seen how al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities -- and we must not allow them to do so again. So, however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it."

I whole-heartedly agree, and was gratified to hear this line of reasoning coming from the President. This is the way of looking at the war that encourages me and many other Americans to continue to support it. Al Qaida and terrorism must be defeated wherever in the world it rears its evil head, and Iraq is currently the primary battle-ground against this enemy. The war must continue there in the interests of American security. The other view of this war regarding Iraqi security and sovereignty, although it should not be the primary focus, follows naturally from promoting American interests. If terrorism is defeated, Iraqi peace and freedom will be much easier to achieve. As President Bush said, al Qaida and Islamic terrorism are public enemies numbers one and one for both of our nations, and protecting American interests in this area will have the effect of also promoting Iraqi peace and security.

In conclusion, I think that public support for the war, which is rising according to a New York Times poll released today, depends in part on the goals that are promoted by the White House. President Bush has a responsibility to continue to promote the viewpoint that he laid out today, and if he does, this leadership, along with the continuing successes occurring in Iraq, will rally the American public to the cause. If not, the issues at stake will remain blurred, and this, along with the defeatism of the liberal establishment, will lead to increasing frustration with the war and decreasing support among the public.