« HA | Main | Hmmmmm »

In the NYT:

"Once you're there, you can't really leave and we've seen that before," said Mr. Rogers, 57, who said he considers himself a Republican, though not a fan of President Bush. "It will get worse and worse and worse. This is a thing you can never win. You just get to be there, on and on."

Memories of Mogadishu echoed across the country.

That's right Mr. Rogers, Iraq is something that you can never win ... if you buy into the concept that it can never be won. We can do this, we can stabilize this country. We have to win - there is no other option. Part of what this situation illustrates is the difference between a Clinton presidency and a Bush presidency. Bush is committed to carrying out the mission. He has solidified this position with public statement after public statement - we are in it to win it. I know that there are very large differences between an engagement like Somalia and Iraq, but the political risk increases with the enormity of the task. There is arguably more incentive to slap together a ramshackle government and leave Iraq to its own devices.

Would Clinton have developed this willingness to committ after an event like September 11th? Perhaps, I guess we'll never know. And while I can't say that I am certain that Kerry would buckle in the face of a similar event, I think that there is a much greater possibility that we could return to the "finger-in-the-wind" foreign policy that gave us retreat from Somalia, ignorance of Rwanda and a ridiculous "air-only" committment in Kosovo, even though genocide was taking place on European soil merely two generations after the lessons of the Holocaust. Consider the fact that the Army wouldn't even committ civilian-saving Apaches in Kosovo, for fear of politically dangerous ground fire.

Bush made a bold decision to remake the political landscape in the Middle East, and he's steering a steady course with our foreign policy that can pay essential dividends by halting weapons proliferation and spreading Democracy. We must stay committed to this ideal.

When you consider the layers of beaurocracy that any administration deals with, and the fact that the foreign policies of different parties often steer closer to a similar reality once any candidate is elected, this willingness to set a goal and hammer away at it is the crucial factor that determines effective policy. We need to ride out the low points and press our advantage; now is a crucial period.

Think about it.

Posted by Bill at April 1, 2004 09:19 AM | TrackBack (0)