Failed Approach?

David Sanger's piece in today's New York Times, Does Calling It Jihad Make It So?, brings up some interesting analysis, although, as always, much is left out. My main issue is with something I read at the end of the piece, the last two paragraphs:

For Mr. Bush, however, dropping the talk of a “long war” would be to send a message that America can go back to sleep. Thus, each terrorist attack or threat is woven into the bigger picture of a global struggle.

It helps explain the recent redeployment of American troops to the streets of Baghdad: to pull out early would be a return to the failed approach of the 1990’s. It would be another Somalia, another Beirut. The problem is whether staying may give the jihadists something else: A narrative of never-ending conflict, in a war to be fought in Baghdad, in Lebanon and in economy class over the wing of a 747.

Now, let's look back at the situations in Somolia and Beirut. Between 1993 and 1995, the U.N. force in Somolia suffered significant casualties and was involved with various military disasters, such as the crashed Black Hawk helicopter in 1993. The withdrawl from Somolia didn't make the nation any more of a breeding ground now than it was before, during, and after the withdrawl.

Lebanon is much the same: the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings forced U.S. troops first offshore, and then completely out of Lebanon in 1984. Not only did Lebanon not collapse into a "failed state", but they came out of their civil war five years after American withdrawl and have been rebuilding ever since. In fact, Lebanon is less of a breeding ground for extremism now than it was before, during, and after the barracks bombings. Hezbollah is the only armed militant group remaining from the civil war, with the others having been disarmed.

So in fact, a withdrawl from Iraq would not necessarily result in a failed state, but only if the withdrawl was properly planned and timed. A mid-2007 withdrawl would give enough time to complete the training of Iraqi security forces and transitioning them into being the public face of the counter-insurgancy in Iraq. Then we could mostly withdrawl and stay on in a supportative role, providing assistance when needed, and otherwise letting the Iraqis handle their own affairs.

What bothers me is Republicans trying to paint the Democratic Party as being "anti-war" and in favor of a "cut-and-run" policy in Iraq. Sure, some of us are anti-war, but don't lump everyone who wants to end the military catastrophe in Iraq in with the anti-war movement. Likewise, I don't know of a single conscientious Democrat who wants to abandon the Iraqi fate to civil war and a failed state. We need to fight back against the Republican propaganda machine, and the mainstream media which is complacent in helping spread it.