Myths about the President's new strategy: DEBUNKED

As the Senate continues to debate whether to stand with the President, the dovish Democrats, and John Wobbly Warner, I'm noticing that a few myths have become part of the conventional wisdom on Iraq, myths that must be debunked for Americans (including Virginians) to understand the President's new strategy, and why it must be supported.

Myth: This is not a new strategy
Reality: Until this month, the President's strategy on Iraq was based on a terrible error - namely the belief that the mullahcracy of Iran would be cooperative, or at least neutral. He believes that no longer. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the troop increase is just part of a multi-pronged strategy designed to fight not just al Qaeda, but the Iranian-backed terrorists who were killing Americans and Iraqis with impunity until a couple of weeks ago. Would I have rather the President took action against the Khomeinist Iraqis earlier (or, in the case of Moqtada al Sadr, finish what he started in 2004)? Of course, but the fact is, he does recognize it now, and the fact that he is willing to fight both enemies in Iraq makes victory possible.

Myth: The President does not have a political solution to Iraq
Reality: Has no one else actually paid attention to his words? The President specifically listed several objectives (provincial elections, oil revenue distribution, pulling back on de-Ba'athification) that were designed to win over ordinary Iraqi Sunnis and anti-Iranian Shiites, and thus make them more willing to confront al Qaedists in their midst. The difference between the President and the Dems and Wobblies is that his political solution would bring together those Iraqis who want the terrorists of all stripes out of Iraq, while the Dems and Wobblies just accept that the terrorists must be a part of Iraq. Count me with the President on this one.

Myth: Baghdad is suffering under sectarian violence
Reality: Baghdad is suffering under an infiltration campaign by the Iranian mullahs who are arming and funding both Shiite and Sunni terrorists. That is why the President's new troops are needed in Baghdad, to fight an enemy the Administration wouldn't acknowledge until now.

Myth: The Iranian mullahcracy wants a stable Iraq
Reality: The irony behind this is shocking. Numerous opponents of the liberation of Iraq (Jim Webb included) cited now-current Iranian infiltration as one of their reasons for opposing it. Their warnings about the mullahs' activities all but codified into law one of my favorites axioms: a broken clock is always right twice a day. Yet they (again including Webb) seem unable to grasp that the mullahs, having been so successful in their proxy war against us for at least Baghdad, and possible for Iraq as a whole, would want nothing less than American surrender on this. I don't understand why, if Webb et al felt (rightly) that Iran's infiltration into Iraq was such a danger, they now cannot bring themselves to support the President's effort to kick Iran out of Iraq.

Myth: A withdraw from Iraq will improve our efforts in Afghanistan
Reality: If Iraq fells to the Wahhabists, Ba'athists, and Khomeinists, the effect on morale in Afghanistan will be catastrophic for the free world. Already, only six countries (the U.S., Britain, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Australia) allow their troops to conduct combat operations in Afghanistan. If our efforts in Iraq fail, the morale boost to al Qaeda will almost certainly translate to the Taliban, while Pakistan will be even more inclined to shelter Taliban forces and Taliban leaders, while ignore our pleas with them to stop doing so. As the Taliban and al Qaeda grow stronger, the resolve of our allies will get weaker (all of the nations listed save Denmark will probably hold elections within the next year; Britain will get a new Prime Minister from the traditionally dovish Labor Party). We may very well find ourselves completely isolated in Afghanistan, while al Qaeda would be able to use Iraq as a major recruiting mechanism for sending fighters to Afghanistan and Somalia.

I hope this can begin to set the record straight on the liberation of Iraq, and why it is still vitally necessary.