President George W. Bush missed a great opportunity Wednesday night. Instead of explaining how a “surge” of 20,000 more soldiers will improve American prospects in Iraq, he should have declared victory and announced plans for a triumphant homecoming parade to honor those who have borne the burden of fighting.
Granted, this sounds like one of those “Healthy Forests” or “Clear Skies” proposals from an administration that has often exhibited some difficulties in grappling with objective reality.
But, in fact, there are many developments that Bush could spin into a plausible “Mission Finally Accomplished” proclamation:
Saddam Hussein, who twice started wars with Iraq’s neighboring nations, has been removed from power, and will never again be a threat to anyone.
The Baathist Party is no longer a political force in Iraq.
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Or, if there are, they are under American control.
Iraq has an elected government.
Iraq is stable, in that things there are quite unlikely to change in the near future.
Any Islamo-fascist terrorists remaining in Iraq are so busy fighting each other that they lack the resources to attack the United States anywhere outside Iraq.
Of course, we have to consider how this would play in domestic politics. Many Democrats, happy to see the war end, would doubtless be glad to bite their tongues and play along.
If others complained that this isn’t exactly a victory, they could be dismissed as carping critics who constantly find fault with President Bush, even when he is making America stronger by freeing our military to address other threats to national security.
Some stalwarts of his own party might question Bush’s resolve if he proclaims victory, but his spinmeisters shouldn’t have much trouble with such criticism. They could easily point out how GOP domestic visions have been advanced in Iraq.
For instance, a secular political party has been removed from power, and Iraqis are now free to act on their Sunni or Shiite religious convictions.
Also, Iraqis freely exercise the same rights as Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The central government holds little power, and “local control” prevails in much of the country.
Further, there have been no reports from Iraq of gay marriage, nor of research involving human stem cells or global warming. And from what I have been able to read, the country has no abortion clinics, and its public schools are not controlled by secular humanists attempting to inflict their liberalism on naive children.
In other words, important Republican goals for the United States are being attained in Iraq, and a triumphant U.S. withdrawal should not impede such progress in Iraq.
There is an economic factor to consider, since Iraqi oil is unlikely to be a significant part of the world market for some time to come. But the president can point to the environmental benefits of high oil prices – a step toward curing our “addiction,” as well as the significant financial rewards for those far-sighted folks who invested in him years ago.
Granted, this suggestion of proclaiming victory is not original. About 40 years ago, Vermont Sen. George Aiken, a Republican, talked about Vietnam. “The best policy,” he said, “is to declare victory and go home.”
It was a pretty good idea then, and it is an even better idea now.
Ed Quillen of Salida (ed@cozine.com) is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
