The editors at WSJ seem to think that the moves by the Administration to get more help in Iraq are a bad thing:
As a matter of strategy, President Bush’s decision to seek another U.N. resolution for rebuilding Iraq may well make sense. But the commander in chief should also note how his adversaries are portraying this move as a sign that both he and the U.S. are on the run.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi could barely contain her glee: “a welcome admission that the current policy is not realistic and not sustainable.” Republican Senator Chuck Hagel lectured the President that he’s now going to have to turn over large chunks of authority to other countries, while at the U.N. the French and Russians are angling to take up that offer. In Saddam Hussein’s bunker, they doubtless see this as the first step toward Somalia or Lebanon redux.
Mr. Bush has made that pledge many times, most recently last week. But the world also watches America’s political debates and it remembers Saigon, Mogadishu and Beirut. We’d like to hear the President explain that his new U.N. strategy is about strengthening America’s commitment to victory in Iraq, not the first step toward walking away.
Honestly, the very question baffles me. I’ve seen zero evidence that the Administration is trying to back out of Iraq. Their opponents have accused them of an almost missionary zeal to invade Iraq, even at the cost of alienating allies and making up evidence to justify themselves. So, why would they back out now? They’re not only ideologically commited to this project but politically wedded to it as well. They have to make Iraq work if Bush is to win a second term.
(Hat tip: Kathy Kinsley)