October
11, 2005
A New Proposal For Iraq
By Ed Koch
On October
6th, President Bush delivered a superb speech on international
terrorism. It is because our President has been willing to stand
up to international terrorism and so many leaders in the Democratic
Party have not been willing to do so, that caused me and millions
of others to cross party lines and support him in the last presidential
election and cheer his victory; notwithstanding that I did not
then, nor do I now, agree with him on a single domestic issue,
ranging from his proposals to reform Social Security and to changing
our tax structure. For me, the single most important issue the
world faced in 2001 and now, trumping all other issues, is international
terrorism. President Bush’s willingness in the face of all
the attacks, so many unfair and ad hominen, to continue to stand
up and exhort the world to continue the ongoing battle against
international terrorism is why I admire and respect him so much.
Would that my party produced such a leader that I could similarly
follow. I know that will happen someday.
Article
Continues Below
The President’s
recent speech on international terrorism was magnificent. The
text of the President’s entire speech, delivered at the
National Endowment for Democracy on October 6th, can be obtained
from the White
House.
The
New York Times in two foolish editorials published on the
next day, October 7, 2005, sought to denigrate the President instead
of trying to add to our security by strengthening him in his leadership
when he has taken on the ferocious, often insane, Islamic terrorists
who believe they have the right to kill every infidel -- Christians,
Jews, Hindus, et.al. The terrorists want to reestablish the Caliphate
from Spain to Indonesia and impose militant aggressive Islam on
the world. Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri,
wrote a 6,000 word letter, not intended for public consumption,
to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Queda’s leader in Iraq, the
latter having earlier called for the killing of civilian Shiittes
in Iraq and the killing of Christians and Jews worldwide.
Shouldn’t
the Times editorials have referred to those terrorist
dangers and, in particular, the grand plan of bin Laden which
the letter describes. The Times news article quoting
the official who provided the briefing to the Times,
reports the letter was a “comprehensive and chilling strategic
vision for Qaeda.”
The editorials,
instead of highlighting the terrorist’s letter, chose to
criticize the President. The lead
editorial hectored, “The president’s inability
to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact
that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating.”
The second
editorial denounced him for “talk[ing] so menacingly
about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen to him describe
the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set
them in motion.”
In his letter,
according to the Times news
story, Zawahiri wrote that “Iraq had become ‘the
place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era,’”
but that it was “only a stepping stone toward a broader
victory for militant Islam across the Middle East.” The
letter “includes a four-state battle plan, beginning with
the American military’s expulsion, followed by the establishment
of a militant Islamic caliphate across Iraq before moving to Syria,
Lebanon and Egypt. The final step would be a battle against Israel.”
Both the
President’s speech and the letter from Zawahiri telling
the world what is in store for it if the terrorists win were available
on the same day, October 6th. The Times’ two editorials
chose to attack President Bush, remaining silent on bin Laden,
Zawahiri and Zarqawi. The President’s speech should have
been praised by the Times, not denigrated. I believe
that if Tony Blair had made it, The Times would have
at the very least praised its eloquence.
The President
honestly and directly described what is at stake in the war on
terrorism, stating:
“Over
the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for
violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S.
military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban,
or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not
facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed.
We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives:
to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of
ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe,
or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for
murder.”
“
we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary
of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a
long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve
no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes
no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those
who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty
of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror
has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized
world must hold those regimes to account.”
I disagree
with the President’s decision to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan
while our allies overwhelmingly decline to provide combat troops
and pay their fair share of the costs of a war which threatens
them even more than it threatens us in the immediate future. But
my disagreement relates to tactics, not the strategic outcome.
In Afghanistan,
we, with other countries, are present under a UN mandate, yet
we are the only country performing military operations against
the Taliban and enemies of the Afghan government chosen in an
election monitored by the UN. Other countries provide military
assistance to the Afghan government, but do not participate in
combat. This is unfair and unacceptable. In Iraq, the situation
is even worse. These countries participating, albeit in a limited
fashion in Afghanistan, e.g., France and Germany, do not participate
at all in Iraq, leaving the dying and suffering primarily to us
and the British. This too is manifestly unfair.
The
Wall Street Journal reported on October 7th that terrorist
attacks against Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are on the rise,
placing those countries in jeopardy.
I propose
that we put the UN Security Council on notice that we will leave
Iraq by the end of this year. My belief is that the UN, particularly
France, Germany and Russia, knowing we will leave, will have a
greater interest in maintaining peace in Iraq than we have, either
a regional interest, e.g., Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and Jordan; or a commercial interest -- oil and vendor contracts
with Iraq -- e.g., Germany and France. They will then understand
that it is in their interest to have us remain with them proportionately
providing troops and sharing the costs of war. We should provide
them with these choices. Indeed, whether they come in or not as
a result of our threat of withdrawal, we will be strengthened
on another front. As a result of our being in Iraq to the extent
that the largest number of our worldwide forces -- 149,000 American
soldiers -- are tied down, we are unable to be a vital threat
to North Korea, Iran and Syria. Those countries believe that,
because we are in Iraq and bereft of allies, we are a paper tiger
whose demands and threats can be ignored with impunity.
The president
in his speech stated, “today, there are more than 80 Iraqi
Army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces.”
That may be true. But according to The New York Times
of September 30th, “In Washington on Thursday, the senior
American military commander in Iraq told Congress that only one
Iraqi Army battalion was capable of fighting without help from
Untied States armed forces. But the commander, Gen. George W.
Casey Jr., was joined by the Pentagon’s senior civilian
and military leaders in stressing that growing numbers of Iraqi
police and Army forces are increasingly able to provide security
in their country.”
Clearly,
it will be a long time before the Iraqi Army can stand up on its
own, so as to permit the U.S. Army, in the words of the President
in an earlier speech, to “stand down.” It is simply
unacceptable that the Iraqi Army under the direction of the Iraqi
government two years after the end of hostilities is still not
able to fight the insurgents on their own. Indeed, the insurgents
appear to be growing in capability. They are suspected by the
British, as stated by Tony Blair, of receiving improved explosives
from Iran which permit them to kill larger numbers of British
troops.
The same
arguments apply to our being required to assume a heavier burden
in Afghanistan than is fair. If the American public believes we
are not being helped by our allies in our efforts to prevent a
victory for the Islamist terrorists threatening the whole world,
the numbers of those tiring of the war will increase. I urge the
President to consider my proposal. But he should also know that
I stand with him and extol his courage and willingness to stand
up for the U.S. and all peaceful nations.
Ed
Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
Send
To a Friend | Printer
Friendly
