The View From 1776

Two Current Views on Iraq Prospects

Updated pro and con on the Bush “surge.”

It’s now obvious to everyone that Congress, dominated by liberals from both political parties, is intent upon following public opinion polls, no matter where they may lead.  That is truly an example of the blind leading the blind.

The public are uninformed about the intricacies of the military and foreign policy considerations in Iraq.  People just want to get back to their usual pleasures and they no longer want to be reminded of the unpleasant reality of Al Queda’s threat to our survival. 

Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, rehearses the liberal scenario: had we confined our military action to Afghanistan, we could have crushed Al Queda; going into Iraq has caused Islamic jihadists to assault us with terrorist tactics.

Mr. Clarke offers no explanations or analysis for his views. 

How, for example, would we have been more effective in destroying Al Queda operations centers located in Pakistan by eschewing military action in Iraq?

Is, as Mr. Clarke declares, the absence of Al Queda attacks here since 9/11 a demonstration that Al Queda will not be made more likely to attack us by a renewed demonstration of liberals’ lack of backbone, revealing once again that the United States is a paper tiger when led by Democrats?

Is it possible that Al Queda have continued to attempt repetitions of 9/11, but have been thwarted by United States and allied counter intelligence? 

Read Mr. Clarke’s views in his April 25, 2007, article in the New York Daily News, Put Bush’s ‘puppy dog’ terror theory to sleep.

For a far more detailed and carefully reasoned appraisal of the President’s surge campaign, read Arthur Herman’s How to Win in Iraq ? and How to Lose in the April 2007 issue of Commentary.

Visit MoveOff Network Members