Leadership wanted to explain need to succeed in Iraq
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
“I DON’T KNOW how long it’s gonna take. It’s gonna take a while. And it’s gonna cost more money, and it’s gonna cost more blood.”
That’s what U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham told the Columbia Rotary week before last regarding Iraq. During that meeting, and in subsequent interviews, he talked about how important it is that the 
nation’s leaders explain to the American people — over and over — the connection between what we’re doing in Iraq and the war on terror, the absolute necessity of staying there until a stable democracy is achieved, and just how long and costly that is going to be.
Not that we have a choice to make: “The American people have no option. It was never an option.” The fight that we are engaged in in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere started long before this date four years ago.
“The root causes of this war had been building over time,” he said. “We ignored them. We disengaged. There were plenty of signs the terrorists were getting stronger and bolder, and we sent them the wrong signal.”
Until Sept. 11, 2001. After that, we fought back. But there’s a lot more involved in achieving peace and security than just fighting.
“There are elements of the War on Terror beyond the use of military force, and they are going to be expensive,” the senator said.
Those elements are also the ones likely to take the longest time, he believes. People in Iraq and other Islamic countries have to realize that “Winner-take-all politics is not a democracy” — or at least, not the kind that works. They have to get not only the politics right, but the fundamental notions of the rule of law. “A courtroom is a place for the unpopular cause,” he said. “How long does it take to get honest judges? A long time.”
And what about the home front? He agrees that we have to have a better energy strategy, and that includes both drilling in Alaska and an emphasis on conservation. It is, the senator said, “imperative that we get away from fossil fuels in general and Mideast oil in particular.” And we need to turn back to nuclear energy. Other countries, including France, have not had our qualms about using that cleaner source of power. “Surely we can be as bold as the French,” he told the Rotarians to general laughter.
And then there’s hydrogen, although that is a long-term strategy. “We in South Carolina are going to become, if I have anything to do with it, the Detroit of the hydrogen economy — without the crime.”
Meanwhile, in Iraq, “The more troops in the country, the better,” for the foreseeable future, the senator said.
His explanation for why polls increasingly show that the American people want to pull out of Iraq is that they are not getting an accurate picture of what is happening. All they see is quick images of mayhem on television or “a few words in the paper” about the latest car bombing, and they despair. They think, “These people can’t help themselves; why should we help them?” Especially when it costs American lives.
But Iraq is worth fighting for largely because of the courage of the Iraqi people — the majority that wants their country to be peaceful and free. It is “the one place in the world where people are standing up to terrorists right in their own backyards,” he said. That makes it one place where we have to win if we’re going to win the larger war that we only fully engaged four years ago.
Aside from roughly 1,900 Americans, thousands of Iraqis have died in this cause, and yet they keep on trying. We have to “stand behind those who are willing to put their lives on the line to build a better Iraq.”
“If you talk about leaving soon, you don’t understand the situation,” he said. And more than once, he told me, “I want to fire the next general who talks about taking one troop out next year.”
“We’re talking about an exit strategy when we should be talking about a winning strategy.”
But what about members of Congress, including those in his own party, who are looking at the polls and talking “exit strategy”?
“Make ’em vote,” he said. “Take (Sen. Russ) Feingold’s resolution (to create a timetable for withdrawing troops) or something and make them vote for it.” He seems quit
e sure they won’t.
OK, fine. So we have to win in Iraq, the American people don’t fully understand why, we need more troops rather than fewer, it’s going to be more expensive than most taxpayers realize, and we have an administration in place that can’t seem to explain that, and that wants to cut taxes and do everything on the cheap. What about that?
First, Sen. Graham says he and other supporters of the war in Congress share much of the blame — for being too optimistic about Iraq going in, and for not explaining the stakes well enough to the public.
He also acknowledges that the president hasn’t done all he should: “His challenge is a constant focus that has been missing.” President Bush used to talk about the “long haul”; more recently he soft-pedaled that.
But he has seen the president change in recent days. “I think the president is learning from Katrina. I see this president adjusting.” Yes, I’ve seen some of the same things. I’ve actually seen him, for once, admit error, and work hard to make up for it.
Still, while I agree with pretty much everything that Sen. Graham has to say on the subject, I am 
not as confident as he is that George W. Bush will exercise the leadership necessary to the situation. I agree with the senator, for instance, that the president gave some very good speeches explaining the stakes in the first days right after Sept. 11, 2001. But that was a long time ago.
All of that said, I hope Mr. Graham is right. Because this is the president we’ve got; we don’t have any choice there, either. If leadership does not emerge, from Congress as well as from the president, we will fail in this war. And this nation — indeed, the civilized world — can’t afford that.
Ultimately, as the senator said, “History will judge us not by when we left, but by what we left.”
Related Posts
Brad, You touched on a lot of issues above. I agree that the American people don’t yet comprehend the full extent of the War on Terror and what it will take to prevail. Yet, I don’t blame that exclusively on the administration or the President himself. We truly are the fast food, lose weight instantly, get rich quick, 15 minute of fame society. Why not have the same expectation with the WOT? And, the “mainstream media” amplifies every single item of negative effect. Remember, NY Times, 48 front page stories on Abu Graib abuses. Most Americans do not want to face up to or admit that there is a huge (from 10 million on up) contingent of the world’s Muslim population that doesn’t just want us out of the Middle East, but they want to exterminate Jewry, and end western civilization as we know it. If one faces up to that, then you recognize this really is WWIII.
Once again, your comments are well founded. Good editorial.
Again, I must ask: how does one define victory in the “War on Terror?” Or if this is WWIII, as David seems to think, then how do we achieve victory? How will we know when we get there?
Phillip, Some do not agree I know but we are winning the WOT and we see evidence of that day by day. Each day that we don’t have another 9-11 or a terrorist attack is a victory in itself. The public is not very interested but Muslim cells in Buffalo, NY, Seattle, Canton, Ohio, even Charlotte, NC have been decimated. There are more that I cannot cite yet more lurk out there planning some form of tragedy. Just a few weeks ago, a car with 3 potential terrorists was pulled over on I-95 near Santee. These guys had just spent a few days photographing the Baltimore Bay tunnel and were on their way back to Florida. No luggage, no normal vacation stuff was found in the car. Just a few fanatics likely planning a tragedy but now in custody. That is how we are winning, minute by minute, day by day. Can every terrorist event be prevented? Not likely, but I don’t see an alternative to what we are doing now. I have only commented on domestic terrorism but there is another complete aspect outside of our borders. That much larger war must be won also.
Yes, we need some political leadership to explain that we have to defeat the Islamic terrorists on their own soil, but what happened to the journalists who are ignorant of the reasons, too lazy to research the facts, or too partisan for the Democratic Party to report the facts, or even worse, lie to their audience?