Published: April 19, 2008 03:28 pm            

FLASHPOINT: Ellsworth avoids facts, bows to his party’s Iraq position

I had a little hope for Rep. Ellsworth before I read his letter on Iraq in your April 8 issue. Apparently, he wanted to avoid the necessity to address the facts, or he would have waited one more day to listen to Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker before pronouncing that the situation “remains dismal.”

Had he listened to the testimony of these two fine servants of our country, he would have heard that exceptional progress is being made across the board in Iraq. Al-Qaida has been dealt a severe blow there and that makes us safer at home. Every metric used to measure the effectiveness of the surge is positive. Remember the “benchmarks” that the anti-war left cried so much about six months ago? Well, no Democrat is interested now, since 12 of 18 have been met. Yes, progress is not only being made militarily but the Iraqis are making political progress too.

Ellsworth even wants us to believe that the recent attacks on the Green Zone are evidence that the situation “remains fragile”. Petraeus and Crocker both report that the offensive in Basra by the Central Government of Iraq (which led to the attacks) is one of the most positive developments in some time. The Shiite led government is doing exactly what we have urged it to do; it is confronting rogue Shiite elements that are doing the bidding of Iran and disrupting progress. Following the offensive in Basra, Prime Minister Maliki received the unanimous approval of all elements of the government; this is the best demonstration possible of the “political reconciliation” that Ellsworth says they are “either unwilling or unable to achieve.”

Ellsworth mouths the position of his party and calls for a “phased withdrawal” from Iraq. Repeatedly, in their testimony, Petraeus and Crocker stated that withdrawal without consideration for the situation on the ground would result in disastrous consequences for Iraq, the Middle East and yes, the U.S. A phased withdrawal is another name for retreat and defeat. Ellsworth is calling for surrender just as victory is clearly possible.

What is most revealing about the Ellsworth letter is the absence of any thought of winning. Nowhere does he address what we are doing in Iraq, what needs to be done to win and the consequences of defeat. All he wants to do is turn tail and get out.

The war in Iraq is part of the larger war against radical Islam. Al-Qaida is the strategic enemy, the state of Iran is its strongest sponsor and Iraq is the central front. Even though al-Qaida has been greatly weakened, if we were to leave a vacuum in Iraq, Iran would fill it with a government that would welcome and support al-Qaida. This would occur after civil war and genocide in which the brave Iraqis who want democracy and support the current government have to fight a well-armed enemy without our help. The outcome would be pre-ordained.

Although establishment of an al-Qaida base in Iraq for attacks on the U.S. is bad enough, the larger question is the future of the whole Middle East. The other governments in the Middle East are sitting on the fence waiting to see whether we or al-Qaida/Iran will win this battle. Our action in Iraq scared Gaddafi enough that he gave up his nuclear ambitions but he would quickly flip once we give up.

Do the Democrats who keep saying, “we need to get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on Afghanistan” believe that the Afghan people will trust and support us after we bail out on the Iraqi people? Further, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are going to support whoever they think is winning. We are not sending them very good signals with the “get out regardless” talk of the Democrat presidential candidates. A Democrat win in November would be the beginning of the end of their support for a free Middle East.

It’s not hard to see the unacceptable situation resulting from a retreat in which Iran gains control of our oil supplies and we are forced to confront them militarily or suffer the loss of our way of life. In the 1970s the leader of Ellsworth’s party, Jimmy Carter, handed over Iran to radical Islam. Now his current party leaders would give the rest of the Middle East to them.

At the same time that Democrats persist in this path, they continue to refuse to develop nuclear energy and to drill for new oil. It’s all a formulae for disaster and Ellsworth apparently doesn’t have a clue.

However, if Iran is foiled in its ambitions for dominance of Iraq, the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will end immediately, the countries on the fence will help establish a free Middle East and even Iran’s puppet, Syria, will become compliant. And this is clearly possible; the process of handing off the security of Iraq to Iraqi forces is going well and can continue until they are fully capable of their own defense, both internally and externally.

The Iraqi forces are generally assuming the job well. As they do better and assume more of the responsibility, we can draw down our forces in a measured and steady way that will not result in a surrender to Iran.

Please, Rep. Ellsworth, don’t continue to put your desire for support from the leaders of your party above common sense and the interests of our country. If Hillary or Obama become president and you in Congress let them withdraw such that Iran takes control of the Middle East, the American way of life as we know it is doomed.

Democratizing the Middle East, starting with doing whatever is necessary to win in Iraq, is our only choice short of war with Iran.

— Thomas B. Tucker

Terre Haute

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.