Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Paulson: Selling you an easy peace
Democrats' hope doesn't extend to war-torn Iraq
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Opinion Columnists"Do not be confused," asserted Barack Obama, after some of his aides had suggested that he would adjust his Iraq troop-withdrawal strategy based on facts on the ground. "I will bring the war to an end in 2009!"
He's taking another stand for "change," but his message of "hope" clearly doesn't extend to the people of Iraq.
At a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al-Qaida and allowed the Iraqi government to make progress on key milestones, Obama plans to bring our troops home in his first year in office.
Hillary Clinton has recently spoken of some flexibility in her timetable, but facing a bitter fight for delegates, both Democratic candidates are competing over who will leave Iraq first.
Retired Army Gen. John Keane, an architect of the Iraq troop surge, warns: "The U.S. military presence is the glue that is holding things together in Iraq and is the fundamental reason for the recent political progress. If you remove this presence, the political leaders in Iraq will believe they are on their own and will fall prey to their own fears and paranoia. ... They will bunker down, and the political progress will come to a dead stop."
For the Iraq war, John McCain is a proven candidate for "change" and "hope." He called for change and fought his own party's leadership to make change happen. His vision for peace through victory makes room for a strong, extended commitment and needed flexibility in strategy.
What if Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman had responded to the loss of American lives at Normandy or Guam by withdrawing before the victory was complete? The quickest way to short-term peace is withdrawal and surrender. The cost of victory and lasting peace has always been high, but the cost of withdrawal is far greater.
Truman knew what the Allied victory would take: "It was a victory of more than arms alone . Back of it all were the will and spirit and determination of a free people — who know what freedom is and who know that it is worth whatever price they had to pay to preserve it."
After World War II, Truman laid the foundation for freedom's lasting victory: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
In Asia, Truman led the effort to help turn Japan into a thriving democracy and a steadfast ally. In Europe, he worked with Congress to launch the Marshall Plan, helping European nations recover from war, establish strong democracies and become valued trading partners. The Marshall Plan lasted more than a decade and cost more than $100 billion in today's dollars, but we transformed former enemies into allies who are indispensable to the cause of peace today.
Despite enormous pressure to bring our troops home after World War II, President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deter aggressive expansion by both the Soviet Union and communist China. The military presence Truman established in Germany, South Korea and Japan has continued for more than 50 years.
Truman was not an eloquent speaker, but he was a man of character, duty and vision. As he left office, he said, "When history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we set the course that can win it." We have!
Yes, mistakes have been made in the Iraq war, as they have in every war. The steady resolve of President Bush and the dogged determination and pressure from leaders like McCain to change our strategy have put us in a position to achieve eventual victory.
McCain's position is clear: "It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq — it's if we succeed or not."
In an old oil filter ad, a mechanic would hold up a filter next to a car with an engine being replaced and observe, "Pay me now or pay me later!" Nov. 4, you'll have the option to choose leaders who want to sell you an "easy" peace and a quick return of our troops. That decision could cost America far more in years to come.
It's time for this generation to show the will past Americans have shown. You have that choice this November.
—Terry Paulson is a psychologist, speaker, author and host to the politicaltalk.org blog. Contact him at terry@terrypaulson.com.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on March 17, 2008 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another pointless polemic by Terry Paulson.
The differences between the American experience in Iraq and WWII or the Cold War could not be greater.
The Second World War was truly a war of survival, whose necessity was even clearer at it's conclucsion that it's beginning. Reasons for going into Iraq were blatantly faked, and time has proven that again and again.
Invasions of Guam and Normandy, while costly were decisive victorys. After the first three weeks in Iraq, the very concept of "victory" has eluded us in Iraq for going on to five years now. This isn't a war of liberation, it's an occupation and that is totally different.
Comparing Bush and Cheney to Truman or Roosevelt, as Mr Paulson would imply is ludicrous. At least Mr Truman was a moderately successful haberdasher, Mr Bush can lay square claim to mediocrity in his checkered career.
The Marshall plan spent $100 billion to rebuild Europe....we'd dropped $500 billion into Iraq, and the electricity there still is not on, the water supply is occasional, and the peace?? Well, it's still not there no matter WHAT the "surge" has accomplished.
This Iraq experience was ill-conceived and poorly prosecuted. This vast waste of lives, resources and money can't end soon enough.
Posted by hemlock1262 on March 17, 2008 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For a man who chickened out of Vietnam, Paulson sure has got guts.
He never met a young man or woman yet he wasn't willing to have die in Iraq to keep a Democrat out of the White House.
Hooah, Terry!
Posted by shaver_one on March 17, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Paulson is wrong.
Violence in Iraq is up, not down. This has been reported by all the media, including Fox. Fox, by the way, IS part of the so-called Mainstream Media.
Admiral Fallon disagreed with Bush's plan of extended stay in Iraq and the planned invasion of Iran. He was 'asked' to resign.
General Petreaus has openly stated that the military cannot win this battle. He also stated that the government of Iraq is NOT performing up to the standards set by both the Bush/Cheney Regime and the al Maliki Regime. He has shown, through his words, that he is disillusioned with the current status of Bush's War of Occupation in Iraq. I suspect he will be asked to resign after his April address to Congress.
Whereas it may not be logistically possible to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2009, it is imperative that we get our troops out. Granted, some troops may need to stay. IF we ever complete the now over-budget Iraqi embassy, Marines will need to stay and guard that embassy. That is one of the roles of the USMC.
And, how can we support a government that openly invited someone who Bush has declared a terrorist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a "brother" of Iraq? Isn't it odd that Ahmadinejad was protected by US troops during his recent 'state visit'?
As evidenced by this visit, George Bush has already given Iraq to the Iranians.
As for President Truman...
He wanted to avoid a costly invasion of Japan. An invasion was planned. It would have cost, at least, 1 million more American lives. It would have extended WW II by another ten years. So, he dropped a Uranium bomb on Hiroshima, and a Plutonium bomb on Nagasaki.
Perhaps Paulson is suggesting Bush drop nuclear bombs on Baghdad and Afganistan? Of course, as we found out in Vietnam, you cannot bomb people back into the stone-age, if they are already living in the stone-age. Had Bush actually served during the Vietnam War, he might realize this. Oh, well.
Posted by sslocal on March 17, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just for the sake of this discussion lets say a Dem is elected to POTUS. They then decide to pull the troops as soon as we can get them and their equipment on the plane.
Iraq bursts into out and out war with the extremists with millions of casualties of either side. (you can bet this will happen if we leave)
Will the Dems blame it all on Bush or will they stand up like a man/woman and say they were wrong?
Just curious...
Posted by Tom_Johnston on March 17, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a shame really, from what I've read, Gen Petreaus probably should have been a more significant part of the command structure in Iraq from the very beginning, along with Gen Shalishkavilli who felt only a massive initial troop presence would prove successful. The chicken hawks surrounding Cheney would have nothing of it, and he resigned early.
The "Pottery Barn" rule quoted by Gen Powell holds true here...we broke, we now own it. Now that we own it, we need to deal with it, and far more effectively that the current administration has. An accelerated withdrawl may be the only thing to shake up the Iraqi government into getting its act together.
We certainly can't continue with more of what this Administration has led us into.
Posted by sslocal on March 17, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"An accelerated withdrawl may be the only thing to shake up the Iraqi government into getting its act together."
You may be right Tom. I really hope you are. But don't you think that the radicals are watching this election as well? Don't you think they hope and prey that a democrat will be elected? I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that they are. We can hope for the best but we had better be prepared for the worst.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 17, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal---going back to your first comment about politicians taking responsibility for their actions and decisions, I invite you to go to the following link for a short video:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-w...
The video about tells it all. Dems, any comments?
Posted by sslocal on March 17, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You won't get any comments mike. I saw that video a few years back. It makes a good point but the left has turned a blind eye towards anything like that. All they see is blood on Bush's hands. God forbid they should claim a portion of the responsibility for Iraq. Honesty is beyond them.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on March 17, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal...I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but it's a fair guess that repeating the past won't get us there.
We've tried pandering to every side of what amounts to an irrational body politic...Shi'te vs Sunni. It's Lilliputian politics played on the real scale.
Maybe it's time for "shock treatment" as in, you guys are gonna have to go it alone and work this out. I agree, as national policy this really sucks, since we made the mess in the first place, but he solution continues to escape us and our Iraqi "partners" currently seem less than up to the task.
This sure isn't about rebuilding 1940's France, Germany etc. Japan's society of the '40's and '50's is nothing like the Arabic world today. Paulson's comments comparing this time to then are as irrelevant as they can be, and as he is.
Are the arabic "radicals" watching...you can bet that they are. They watch everything that we do. It does not make any of this easier. I'd venture that some of them are more savvy in the current modes of mass communications than our own government.
If we pull our resources, manpower and more importantly financial efforts from the quagmire Iraq, and put it into our own nation, I think we will be able to better prepare for the worst.
We have to hope so, since this Iraqi adventure to date has been such a total disaster.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 18, 2008 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom---any time your crooked party leaders get caught in the act, you're willing to put it in the past?
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.