We have lost the war on terrorism.
President Bush’s address to the nation on the evening of May 25th, in which he detailed how he plans to stick to the June 30th handover of sovereign power to the Iraqi governing council, guarantees not only that Iraq is lost, but that the U.S. will be struck again, either here or abroad, by terrorists who have correctly assessed this country’s willingness to fight the war.
It should be apparent to any rational person that it is not only Mr. Bush’s domestic polices that are colored by a conservative, “faith-based” philosophy. His foreign policy is based on a secularized version of that same philosophy.
He has expressed faith in the Iraqis’ ability to govern themselves in a country:
1. That has never known freedom;
2. Whose citizenry may not even want such freedom if they insist on the imposition of Islamic law, or of one brand of it over another;
3. Whose “insurgents,” “militias,” and other armed gangs are salivating at the chance to not only topple the Iraqi government, but slaughter each other for the privilege, once the American military there has been emasculated by Iraqi veto power of its actions to maintain order, to defend itself if there is a likelihood of Iraqi casualties, or even leave at Iraqi request.
Whether or not Mr. Bush sees any of these factors as real, he believes that his good intentions will override any reason-based assessment of their reality. Wishing will somehow make it true and workable.
Reason has never been a friend of any religion. Faith is impervious to it. Faith neither solicits nor accepts any proof that contradicts blind belief in an alleged “fact.” Faith has nothing to do with reality. Mr. Bush believes in honoring an unrealistic commitment to hand over power to the Iraqis, even though they have demonstrated that their own police force cannot safely patrol Baghdad’s streets without being shot up and killed. What will happen in a state of anarchy, when competing civil “authorities” batter each other and the population for power?
He believes that the United Nations, which fought the U.S. at every step and led a diplomatic condemnation of the U. S. for being so “arrogant” as to want to eradicate evil and act in its own self-interest, has a role in Iraq’s future — and this in the face of the now-hushed up Iraqi “food for oil” scandal that has implicated even the Secretary General of that invidious organization. His faith in the U.N., and its alleged “legitimate” stake in Iraq’s future, flies against the U.N.’s half-century “peace-keeping” record, which would not qualify it to assume the duties of a school-crossing guard.
He believes that pouring billions of dollars of American tax money into rebuilding Iraq’s “infrastructure” and economy will somehow win the “hearts and minds” of Iraqis. He forgets that the U.S. poured billions into the infrastructures of Soviet Russia, which continued to aim its missiles at us, not to mention fought us by proxy in Vietnam and Korea. He forgets that we are pouring billions into Red China, which has stolen our military technology and has aimed its missiles at us. Such “foreign aid” has never won the U.S. any friends, only contempt and demands for more with no strings attached that would interfere with a country’s “internal affairs.” If the government that assumes control of Iraq on June 30th survives, what evidence is there that it will not adopt the same policy?
The Baltimore Sun makes a not irrelevant observation: “President Bush’s pledge to return sovereignty to Iraqis has prompted skepticism from the Arab world and Europe. Critics there question how much independence Iraq will truly have with 138,000 U.S. and 7,500 British troops remaining in their country indefinitely.”
More relevant is this question: How much independence will it have when armed gangs and puppet spokesmen funded and controlled by Syria and Iran are running the show?
The Baltimore Sun continues: “