Give the plan a chance

The other day, I started a post about Lt. Col. Oliver North, the work he does on Fox News to bring Americans news from the troops that nobody else is covering, and his perspective on rumors that the President would be sending more troops to Iraq. He urged against it. It was the day before the State of the Union address, I was mostly finished writing the post, and then we had a server glitch and Poof, it disappeared. No time to go back.

Just as well. Things have changed. So I wanted to know what Col. North, a highly esteemed career Marine officer and host of Fox News’ ‘War Stories’, thought about the President’s plan. Here it is: “POTUS Gets Tough” (President of the United States)

So, he didn’t take my advice.

Despite recommendations to the contrary in this column last week, President Bush announced on Wednesday night that he’s “committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” That’s the headline. But there’s a lot more to the story. It’s rife with risk — and great opportunity.

First, the good news. The most important statement of the speech was an accurate description of the present situation. Mr. Bush said, “The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.” The president went on to acknowledge that, “only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people,” and that “failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” He’s dead right, on all counts.

His “new strategy” for using U.S. forces in Baghdad follows a model now being effectively employed in Al Anbar Province…The administration’s “New Way Forward” also concedes the need for the Maliki government to apply the rule of law equally, the necessity for provincial elections and recognition that local leaders — like Sheikh Abdel Sattar — are crucial to rallying the minority Sunni population in defending Iraq from foreign intervention.

Mr. Bush promised more “embedded” advisors to accelerate training Iraqi police and Army units, less onerous “restrictions” on U.S. troops, a desperately needed emphasis on Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to improve economic resuscitation and new laws ensuring equitable distribution of Iraq’s vast oil wealth.

And though the masters of the mainstream media and our “professional punditry” generally ignored the point — instead of coddling Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group — the president is choosing to confront them, promising to “destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

We are not getting this depth of analysis, without political self-interest, from any of the mainstream media. America’s knowledge of the war and the conditions and challenges on the ground in that region come almost entirely from what the media elite put on our tv screens and in our print news. As a nation, we need to understand what we are engaged in, and the line above that Col. North highlights bears repeating: “It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.”

If all of these changes — not just more U.S. troops in Iraq — materialize as President Bush described them on Wednesday evening, they could well help to ensure “the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life.” Unfortunately, many of the ingredients for success are not in his hands. And therein are the great risks in his “New Way Forward.”

There is no assurance that Congress will actually authorize or fund essential increases in our Army and Marine Corps. While Mr. Bush called for “talented American civilians” to deploy overseas to “build democratic institutions,” he did not place the rest of the U.S. government on a war footing. Even now, the only Americans fighting this war are soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines.

And in the meantime, the new battleground is turning out to be the floor of Congress. A unified government, in partnership, in this latest push to win the war as defined above would increase its potential dramatically.

But the greatest vulnerabilities to Mr. Bush’s strategy reside in Baghdad and Washington. By endorsing “Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November,” Mr. Bush has defined a “timeline” and created political expectations here at home that the Maliki administration may be unwilling or unable to fulfill.

This is a realistic assessment, from someone who knows the circumstances and people on the ground in Iraq.

I have documented the bravery of Iraqi police and soldiers defending their own streets from terrorists – their courage has not been matched by elected officials in Baghdad. If Mr. Maliki fails to deliver on promises to crack down on the militias, equitably distribute oil wealth, reform his ministries, pay his soldiers and police and “create new jobs” in the next ten months, the plan will collapse – no matter how many U.S. troops we send to Iraq. At that point the new leaders in Congress will likely launch an effort — as they did in 1974 with Vietnam — to cut off funding — and thereby ensure disaster.

You have to shudder at even the thought. That’s why there’s more than rhetoric to the statement by Sen. McCain and others that ‘defeat is not an option.’

Finally, Mr. Bush noted that the days ahead will demand “more patience, sacrifice and resolve.” That’s undoubtedly true. Hopefully, the “Author of Liberty” to whom he appealed, will grant at least patience and resolve to those in Congress who have forgotten the words to that great old hymn.

Here’s another great old hymn, posted down below, but I’ll put it up again here at this time of new resolve.