2007 was the deadliest year in the War in Iraq for American troops – at least 899 troops were killed in Iraq. I wonder why this isn’t a bigger issue during the campaign season since it might be the most important issue the next president will face. This used to be a big deal for Democrats, especially after they rode it all the way to the halls of Congress in 2006. But with congressional disapproval ratings at a historic low – even lower then President Bush’s – it shocked me that democrats could so quickly cut and run from the issue quicker than they would cut and run from the war. Could it be because Bush’s “disastrous,” “failed,” troop surge is working? As American troops successfully decrease violence levels, more responsibility can be shifted to the Iraqi troops. A Nov. 6, 2007 story by the Associated Press stated the majority of Americans believe the Unites States will be victorious in Iraq, despite the many claims the war was already lost. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, announced that violence across the country is down 60 percent and casualties were down “dramatically,” according to the New York Times. Additionally, Iraq’s Interior Ministry claimed 75 percent of Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been destroyed. Petraeus cited many different reasons for the progress in the War on Terror, including the troop surge, the decision to operate from smaller bases, the aggressive offensive operations and the Sunni rejection of insurgents – among others. The Pentagon continues to shift more responsibility to the Iraqi government despite pending withdrawals from American allies Britain, Poland and Australia, according to the AP. The top democratic contenders still call for a withdrawal of American forces but lack detailed withdrawal plans. So why no fuss? The AP reported Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center’s said: “I don’t think people care less. It’s that they’ve been hearing less. There is a sense that things are going a little bit better in Iraq,” regarding the current agenda shift. After opting to ignore the debate over Iraq they have been so staunchly calling for, Democrats have chosen to focus on different issues: healthcare, the economy and the legalization of illegal immigration. St. Thomas Aquinas – one of the greatest debators of all time – believed that to debate someone successfully you must do it on your opponent’s terms. So for fairness’ sake, I will focus on something other than Iraq. After all, it is only one front in the War on Terror. I’ll skip Hillary’s ignorance on Pakistani politics. I’ll even forego Barack Obama’s willingness to foresake America’s tradition of not negotiating with terrorists. Withdrawing completely from Iraq or opening dialogue between the United States and the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not a very sturdy platform for an election in which the victor will shape the fate of the world for decades to come through his or her foreign policy decisions. Instead I will focus on the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The NIE stated Iran halted nuclear development after 2003 – widely viewed as a devastating defeat for Iran skeptics. Lately, the only victories for Democrats seem to come from Republican losses. They should change their campaign slogans to something along the lines of, “Vote Democrat. Because we’re not Republicans.” But the NIE analysts were also unaware if Iran intended to stop its nuke program but noted the earliest date for the development of a weapon was 2009. They also suggested Iran has the “scientific, technical and industrial capacity” to produce a nuke. But this would not be the first time our intelligence community has been wrong. A 2002 estimate concluded Iraq was developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. An estimate from 2006 claimed the Iraq War served as a strong recruiting mechanism for Islamic extremists, prompting the Washington Post to call the situation “difficult, if not impossible, to combat.” Besides – if there ever was a time to be cautious of the NIE or Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is now. After an incident where small Iranian patrol boats approached and threatened a U.S. Navy convoy, the New York Times released a story on an American war game. In the simulation, small enemy speedboats in the Persian Gulf destroyed 16 major American warships in a matter of minutes with relatively little cost or loss of life. The NIE suggested intensified international scrutiny on Iran has helped to influence the halt of its weapons program. Their president is a man that has already declared his willingness to sacrifice half of his own nation to wipe Israel off the map. Maybe now is not the time to stop taking Iran seriously.
—-Contact Daniel Lumetta at [email protected]