Strength with Honor in the Middle East

The greatest challenge to significant change is sustained resolve, equity and time. In a Democratic society it requires a majority consensus and raised awareness. The majority placed more centrist Democrats in office, who are unlikely to appear soft on national security or for their support of our troops in Iraq.

The road traveled into Iraq has put into motion a Pandora’s box of global proportions and implications. The left argues for withholding federal funds to bring a timely end to our occupation. Obviously, our tax dollars could be applied to better purposes. And then there are those on the right who believe additional troops could contain the escalating sectarian violence and protect the too few troops there. They're belief is "might makes right" and all that is needed is continued resolve.

Few disagree that whatever the decision, it serves our interests to protect American military lives in the region by extricating them from the midst of this conflagration. We now recognize the harsh reality that sustained American combat troop strength has been inadequate. It may require bending existing Reserve and National Guard policies or resurrecting a draft to replenish the already critical conditions of multiple combat tours.

Sectarian violence is not limited to Iraq because the underlying issue is one of power and influence over resources not limited within her borders. Few believe Iraq’s leadership is prepared to share power or maintain order even under an established timeline. Four years of the status quo has created an untenable situation of existing strained relationships.

Pakistan bordering on Afghanistan which borders on Iran has a thin level of control over fundamentalist Islamic leanings. Neighboring India needs stability and an unstable Pakistan on her border will not do. Both are nuclear powers; hence, Bush’s visit there. Turkey wants stability on its border with Kurdistan and Iraq and is worried about an oil wealthy and separate Kurdish state. Syria bordering Iraq may be concerned with an all too powerful Iran and its support of the Sunni minority concentrated in Baghdad in Iraq.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, while both oil rich and wealthy kingdoms, don’t possess the military capacity of the Iranians and would be concerned over instability in the region where Iran may accomplish what Saddam had tried in 1990. And what would Americans do when gas is then $5.00 or more per gallon? Let’s not forget the simmering hostilities among Lebanon, Palestine and Israel and our military presence in Kuwait.

This is the peril of limited military presence without an exit strategy. Are we willing to lose lives to save face? Is that what winning means? If containment and stability is our military role then a preferred option may be maintaining combat troops aboard ships in the Gulf. The pride of America can still exist through muscular diplomacy, which inevitably must happen. We have to work with European and Arab nations in a coalition to bring stability to the region. It makes political and economic sense, too.

China, France, Germany and Russia all have significant economic interests in the area and also benefit from stability in the region. Hence, this is far from a left-right issue of our military presence, but our public’s resolve to demand the best viable solution among many poor ones. That brought an end to the Cold War - strength with honor.