Howard Dean calls a retreat.
Remember somewhere back there, last year, when they were saying that liberating Iraq would mean increased danger for the United States and her allies? Remember when they were saying that attacking Saddam would cause increased terrorism? (*)
Throw that out the window.
In Howard Dean’s major foreign policy speech this week he said, “The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” (†) The previous criticism was that helping Iraq would make the US less safe. Now the criticism is that helping Iraq should have made us more safe. Dean has conceded that helping Iraq has not made us less safe.
Interesting is the word chosen. Safety is what Howard Dean wants—not victory, but safety. The v-word was not even mentioned in his speech.
We are fighting a war. The proper standard of success in war is not whether we are safer. In war the yardstick measures whether we are advancing toward victory or retreating before a superior opponent. By any measure the United States and her allies are not retreating from any battle in the War on Terrorism. We are advancing. There is some question about whether we are going to continue our assault on Islamofascism by liberating Iran, or by putting the squeeze on Syria and Saudi Arabia. If Howard Dean does want victory he would display an impressive level of boldness by calling for greater attention than Bush is giving to those three fronts.
Howard Dean made some good points in his speech.
[O]ur most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least.…
The Nunn-Lugar program has been critical to securing the vast nuclear, chemical, and biological material inventory left over from the Soviet Union. Incredibly, despite the threat that the nexus of terrorism and technology of mass destruction poses, despite the heightened challenges posed by 9-11, the current administration has failed to increase funding for these efforts to secure dangerous weapons.…
There is a global struggle underway between peace-loving Muslims and this radical minority that seeks to hijack Islam for selfish and violent aims.… The tragedy is that, by its actions, its unilateralism… this Administration has empowered radicals, weakened moderates, and made it easier for the terrorists to add to their ranks.
The next President will have to work with our friends and partners, including in the Muslim world, to persuade people everywhere that terrorism is wholly unacceptable, just as they are persuaded that slavery and genocide are unacceptable.…
Our alliance with Israel is and must remain unshakeable.…
Unfortunately Howard Dean does not understand that many Muslims find slavery and genocide very acceptable. He may not have heard of the concept of dhimmitude. He should also consider what radical Muslims do to animists in Africa. Perhaps he could be educated.
So far, however, there is no evidence that Howard Dean understands that this is a war for survival. He wants to cut the military to the bone and to avoid at all costs military confrontations with radical Islam. That is the great weakness of his strategic vision. Unless he reckons with his blindspot, I would hope he is defeated either in the primaries or in the general election.