Cheney and Obama at AIPAC

Vice President Dick Cheney spoke yesterday to the AIPAC Policy Conference and addressed four “myths about the war on terror” — the “most common” one, the “most transparent” one, the “most dangerous” one, and the “cruelest myth of all.” 

For reasons I’ll try to demonstrate, the Cheney speech needs to be analyzed in terms of Barak Obama’s March 2, 2007 AIPAC speech. But first, here are Cheney’s four myths:

[1]  The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. . . . We hear this over and over again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. . . . He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." . . .  Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. . . .

[2]  The second myth is the most transparent. And that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements needed to carry out their mission. . . . [W]ithin his days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate — I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus — a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements he said were necessary. And, of course, the House of Representatives did pass such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary in winning that battle. It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress. . . .

[3]  There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this one is also the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will actually strengthen America‘s hand in the fight against terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a full validation of the al Qaeda strategy. . . . Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They cite the cases of Beirut in the 1980s and Somalia in the ’90s. . . . [I]f the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. . . .

[4]  And that leads me to the fourth and the cruelest myth of all and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to the broader Middle East. . . . [L]et me say that a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East. . . . If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies would recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs, including their pledge to destroy Israel. If Iran‘s allies prevailed, the regime and Teheran’s own designs for the Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified. . . .

Cheney’s speech rebutted the myths with something close to self-evident truths:  the Iraq war is the central battle in the war on terror because al Qaeda has made it a fundamental test of wills over a critical country; the war cannot be won if the General conducting it is not given the troops he says he needs; leaving Iraq will demonstrate the validity of al Qaeda’s strategy and thus lead to its repetition elsewhere; and there will be serious repercussions throughout the Middle East if that happens.

In his March 2, 2007 AIPAC speech, Barak Obama outlined his own Iraq strategy (reflected in painstaking detail in “The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007” that he is sponsoring):

I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. . . .

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. [non-combat] troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos.  In addition, we will redeploy out troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.  And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran 

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. . . .  And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran . . .

Obama would thus announce (indeed legislate) that U.S. combat troops will be gone within one year, starting in three months.  He believes leaving “a limited number of U.S. troops” will “prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism” — although a large number of U.S. troops has not yet had that effect.  He believes leaving non-combat troops will “reduce” the risk of all-out chaos (all-out chaos being one of the reasons he thinks U.S. troops should leave in the first place, since it is a sign of “someone else’s civil war” that U.S. troops purportedly cannot solve).

And his plan includes a “robust” diplomatic strategy.  He doesn’t explain what the “strategy” is, but one thing you can rely on is this:  any unexplained diplomatic strategy that includes the word “robust” will be long on adjectives and short on verbs.  Moreover, even the verbs will not be enough to “reassure” allies about the U.S. staying “engaged” (great word!) anywhere — not after Vietnam (1975), Beirut (1983), Somalia (1993), and then Iraq (2007).

After his legislation ends the war by next May — just before the Democratic convention — and the risk of all-out chaos has been “reduced” by non-combat troops, with an unexplained (but “robust”) diplomatic strategy implemented in the wake of a military defeat, Obama assures us we will be able to “more effectively deal” with Iran.

This is the current rock star of the Democratic Party.

Obama’s AIPAC speech reflected all four of Cheney’s myths.  Without referencing Obama by name, Cheney demolished the intellectual underpinning of the reigning Democratic world view.