Here are some exccerpts from a statement about the war in Iraq McCain made that I think are right on:
Many opponents of the war in Iraq, and even some supporters, worry that the deserts of Iraq hold the same quicksand as the jungles of Southeast Asia. When our Secretary of Defense says that it is up to the Iraqi people to defeat the Baathists and terrorists, we send a message that America’s exit from Iraq is ultimately more important than the achievement of American goals in Iraq. We send a signal to every Iraqi – ally, neutral and adversary – that the United States is more interested in leaving than we are in winning.
“Iraq is not Vietnam. But if we are to avoid a debate over who “lost” Iraq, as we debated who lost Vietnam a generation ago, we must act urgently to transform our early military success into lasting political victory. The United States can and must win in Iraq. Iraq’s democratic future, American credibility, and American security require it. An exit strategy is more than a date certain. It’s more than a timetable for building an Iraqi army. It must be a victory strategy that recognizes U.S. vital interests at stake in Iraq and the good our nation can do when we are committed to serving the cause of freedom in a violent, dangerous place that can, in the end, only be made less threatening and more stable by the success of our political ideals.
“The American people understand the need to build a new Iraq from the ashes of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime. Americans can be proud of the role every American in Iraq is playing to put that country on a course in which freedom and decency, rather than terror and fear, guide daily life. Our citizens are understandably upset by the daily death toll in Iraq. We must explain to the American people what our soldiers are dying for in Iraq, why their sacrifice matters, why we must win, and how we will win – not how quickly we can get out and leave the Iraqis to their fate.
Friends and adversaries across the Middle East are watching us closely to gauge our will to win. Let’s be honest: many of them do not want us to succeed. I don’t think the Baathists in Syria, the mullahs in Tehran or Arab despots from Riyadh to Tripoli are cheering for the United States. The expectation that we may leave Iraq before we have achieved our security and political objectives will cripple our ability to achieve them at all.
“Politics at home has handicapped our progress. Only a few leading Democrats have demonstrated the kind of bipartisanship Bob Dole showed when, only two months before the 1996 New Hampshire primary, he supported President Clinton’s decision to commit American forces to Bosnia despite the political risks he faced in doing so. Today, some Democrats who supported the war in Iraq oppose spending the money required to win the peace. Others blindly criticize the Administration without proposing an alternative policy that preserves American interests. With the exception of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, who are committed to victory in Iraq, it is unclear what the other Democratic presidential candidates would do differently to ensure an American victory – or how they would handle the consequences of the early American withdrawal some advocate. Governor Dean has expressed ambiguity about the justness of our cause in Iraq. I hope he will learn that partisan anger is no substitute for moral clarity.
Security is the precondition for everything else we want to accomplish in Iraq. We will not get good intelligence until we provide a level of public safety and a commitment to stay that encourages Iraqis to cast their lot with us, rather than wait to see whether we or the Baathists prevail. Local Iraqis need to have enough confidence in our strength and staying power to collaborate with us. Absent improved security, acts of sabotage will hold back economic progress. Without better security, political progress will be difficult because the Iraqi people will not trust an Iraqi political authority that cannot protect them. By all means increase the number of Iraqis involved in security – as the Administration is suggesting we will do by standing up an Iraqi paramilitary force drawn from the security forces of the former regime and the militias of Iraqi political parties. But given the time it will take to train and deploy sufficient numbers of Iraqi forces and the competence required to root out a hardened foe, for the foreseeable future, Iraqi forces aren’t a substitute for adequate levels of American troops.
“Our adversaries in Iraq seek not merely our military withdrawal but the defeat of our enterprise to construct a new and democratic Iraq. What threatens them most are not American forces but the prospect of a progressive, popularly elected Iraqi government that rejects everything the Baathists stand for and holds them accountable for their crimes. More American forces and a commitment to keep them in Iraq as long as it takes are required to defeat our adversaries, so that Iraqi democracy is not stillborn. As we learned in Vietnam, if we do not defeat them before we leave, our enemies will continue to fight until any government we help establish is destroyed.
“Ultimately, Iraqis should decide how to form a constitutional commission and when to hold national elections. The Iraqification of Iraqi politics should be accelerated, even as American military forces continue to play the central role in hunting down Iraqi insurgents. We are aggressively training Iraqis to perform security functions. We should be equally aggressive in training and advising political parties, transferring more authority to Iraqi leaders, and establishing a framework and timeline for a political transition. It is our responsibility to help create the security in which Iraqi politics can flourish. We can leave it to the Iraqis to decide what kind of tax code they should have.
“Iraq’s transformation into a progressive Arab state could set the region that produced Saddam, the Taliban, and al Qaeda on a new course in which democratic expression and economic prosperity, rather than a radicalizing mix of humiliation, poverty, and repression, create a new modernity in the Muslim world that does not define itself in ways that threaten its people or other nations. Failure to make the necessary political commitment to secure and build the new Iraq could endanger American leadership in the world, put American security at risk, empower our enemies, and condemn Iraqis to renewed tyranny. It would be the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam.
Let there be no doubt: victory can be our only exit strategy. We are winning in Iraq – but we sow the seeds of our own failure by contemplating Winning will take time. But as in other great strategic and moral struggles of our age, Americans have demonstrated the will to prevail when they understand what is at stake, for them and for the world. If we succeed in Iraq, a new generation of Americans will take pride in their country’s sacrifice, and American credibility in the world will be as enhanced as it was harmed by our defeat in Southeast Asia. Our success in Iraq will change the way the Middle East is governed and deter a host of threats that will prey on our weakness if we fail.
“We must succeed in Iraq because every bad actor in the Middle East – Baathist killers, terror’s sponsors in Iran and Syria, terror’s financiers in Saudi Arabia, terror’s radical Shiite and Wahabi inciters, the terrorists of Al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam, Hamas, and Hezbollah - has a stake in our failure. They know Iraq’s transformation would be a grave and perhaps fatal setback to them. Iraq must be important to us because it is so important to our enemies. That’s why they are opposing us so fiercely, and why we must win.”
read the whole thing:http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1174
