I'll admit it. I like it because he hammers on points I've been making for more than two years now on this blog. From disbanding the Iraqi army, to casualties, to "lies," to de-Baathification, to our troops numbers, and to how we are fighting the war.
His concluding section puts it well:
Fortunately, we have a President today who understands what winning this war requires. As long as the American people don't lose sight of the goals of this war and continue to give him a Congress that will support the war, then we will continue to make progress toward victory.
The problem is there is little chance that we will break the back of international Islamist terrorism before the end of 2008. That means that there is a very good chance that, without a pro-war incumbent, we will find ourselves with a new president who won't have Bush's spine.
Or President Bush's vision. Because for all that the Left has loved to call him dumb, the only people I hear saying truly stupid things these days are those that the Left considers smart -- or at least smarter-than-Bush.
Well, dumb-guy Bush and his team have been leading us in the best-run war in American history -- not a flawless war, but one with far fewer and less costly mistakes than the norm. (Dear Furious Letter Writers: Don't even bother arguing this point with me until you've studied the mistakes made in all our other wars so you have some kind of perspective.)
Sadly, I don't see either party advancing candidates for the presidency who show any sign of being as smart as Bush about what our national security requires.
The "best-run war in American history." I will enthusiastically second that assessment. The critics haven't a clue. Even the Persian Gulf War is not better despite its overwhelming nature simply because it was so limited and so short that it didn't rise to the level of a war, really. It was a giant tank battle that was finished in one continuous 4-day assault.
And we are truly fortunate to have this president at a time of war. Sadly, I too worry about how this war will be fought after the 2008 election. I won't panic, mind you. Even a president who fails to fight this war will find that they will have to fight or lose their job. We may lose time and people--we can be hurt--but we are too powerful to be beaten by our enemies. If hit hard enough, our people will insist we fight and then we will go after our enemies again. If we need to be hit hard by our enemies to remind us we must crush them, I have no doubt our enemies will oblige if we let up on them. I wish this not so, but it is. And then we will redouble our efforts.
Oh, and Card relates one of the many reasons we are better than our enemies and deserve to despite the apologists here who only seem to want to "understand" our murderous enemies:
Some American soldiers on the street of an Iraqi city are near some Iraqi schoolgirls when a truck carrying insurgents pulls up to block the intersection: An ambush!
The Americans immediately and instinctively grab the girls and put them behind them, so that the Americans are shielding the girls with their own bodies.
This is not what the anti-American propaganda says Americans will do. And the insurgents, for reasons known only to them, get back in their truck and drive on.
Instead of vast arrays of storm troopers, they see young Americans behaving decently and bravely and kindly. It's part of our strategy. It works.
We're winning and we deserve to win. In what world is this not crystal clear?
But as I said, go read it all.
