Befuddled Superpower

"For if the trumpet give
an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the
battle?"

On reading the Washington Post story by Robin
Wright,

"Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate from Baker
Group`s," about a new internal review of
U.S. war policy,

St. Paul`s words return to mind.

Here we are, longer in this

war in Mesopotamia than America fought in World War
I or World War II against Germany; yet, consider what
our commander in chief—a successor to war presidents
Lincoln, Wilson and FDR—is even now seeking to discover.

"The president," said an anonymous White House
official, "has asked the national security agencies
to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and
recommend the best way forward. … The president
indicated Monday that he is interested in hearing
interesting ideas both within the administration and
from the Baker-Hamilton commission."

So critical is this review that

Condi Rice postponed her departure for the
Asia-Pacific summit to participate. State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack told the Post the secretary has
been "doing a lot of thinking" about Iraq over the last
two months.

Thinking about what? Replied McCormack:

"The primary focus is on
the State Department role in Iraq and are we pursuing
the proper policies, are we asking the right questions,
are we seeking the right objectives, are we using the
right means to achieve these objectives, following the
right strategy and tactics?"

Excuse me, but this sounds like some lost soul crying
in a wilderness. Yet it is the voice of the foreign
ministry of the world`s last superpower in the fourth
year of a war to decide the fate and future of the
entire Middle East.

Should not these questions have been asked, and
answered with finality, by our war leaders before they
marched us up to Baghdad? Are these not the questions a
Democratic Senate should have asked Don Rumsfeld and
Colin Powell before they gave Bush a blank check for
war?

Incredible. The U.S. government is tasking the NSC,
CIA, State and Defense to bring forward new ideas to
extract us, without defeat, from a war into which we
have been plunged by the elected leaders of that same
government.

How can the American people have confidence in war
leaders who still do not know how best to fight, win or
end this war, but must seek guidance from the
bureaucracy?

Whatever is said about Eisenhower and Nixon, both
came in with clear ideas of how they intended to
extricate us from unpopular wars. Both did so and won
landslide re-elections. Both set out a clear goal, made
the necessary military and diplomatic moves, and took
the political heat. Apparently, our present war leaders,
four years into the war, have no policy to win or end
this war.

They are throwing up questions, asking advice,
pleading for ideas, begging for answers. Even the U.S.
Joint Chiefs Of Staff have joined in the hunt.

"One component of the larger (review) effort is
likely to be a military review initiated in
mid-September by

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs
of staff," writes Wright. "His assessment of
anti-terrorism efforts, with a core focus on Iraq,
includes 16 top commanders meeting daily to brainstorm
on questions such as: `Where are we going? What are we
trying to do? Are we going to get there this way?`"

Is this not disconcerting? The most experienced
warriors of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines
are sitting around every day, asking one another: "Where
are we going? What we are we trying to do?"

Can one imagine Douglas MacArthur,

Chester Nimitz, "Bull" Halsey and

Curtis LeMay sitting around day after day in

Honolulu, asking each other: "Where are we going?
What are we trying to do?"

A senior defense official provided added guidance:
"Nothing is off the table. They are looking at the whole
spectrum of less forces, more forces."

This remark suggests the U.S. joint chiefs are open
to all options, including

defeat. For once U.S. forces begin to pull out of a
war that is far from being won, we risk losing that war.

Heretofore, President Bush had said America`s goal is
"victory" and that we will not depart until it is
achieved. By victory, he has meant eradication of al-Qaida
in Iraq, defeat of the insurgency and an Iraq on
America`s side in the war on terror.

What these strategic reviews suggest is that not only
do our leaders not know how to achieve "victory,"
they are no longer sure it is worth the cost.

What these strategic reviews also suggest is that
George Bush, the defiant leader atop the pile of rubble
at the

World Trade Center, George Bush

"The Decider," George Bush the resolute war
chief who will stay the course in Iraq if only Laura and
Barney are still with him, has vacated the White House.

In his stead sits a president asking questions,
seeking ideas, searching for answers. If the trumpet
give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle?

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs


no introduction to VDARE.COM
readers; his book

State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America,

can be ordered from
Amazon.com.