Critics won’t admit the progress made

Published 9:00 pm Thursday, July 27, 2006

Rick Horowitz’s recent column, “Hey, it’s a plan for Iraq, what a concept,” illustrates that, for some, being a critic is an end in itself. With teenage sarcasm, he mocks the president’s surprise trip to Iraq and subsequent initiatives to assist the new Iraqi cabinet as too little, too late. “What took you so long?” Horowitz harrumphs. “…invading Iraq isn’t the same as playing Capture the Flag … It would take – perish the thought – planning!”

Really? There’s no plan? Who’s been restoring water and electricity, building schools and hospitals, and recruiting and Iraqi training security forces? Who established a new currency, orchestrated two national elections and installed a democratic government? Seems to me it isn’t the president who lacks a plan, but the armchair quarterbacks. What have they done for Iraq? Striking fear into the hearts of the enemy and ending the conflict sooner rather than later requires a bit more commitment than bashing the commander in chief, discrediting the mission’s purpose and progress, and advocating retreat.

Critics admit Iraq (and the world) is better off without Saddam, but won’t admit it was good that we actually did it. They say they support the troops, yet slander them and disparage their mission. They complain the results thus far aren’t good enough, but never define what “good enough” is. They offer no “plan” of their own to fix it or end it and won’t contribute to the existing plan. They only criticize, ignoring successes and magnifying failures, giving hope to the enemy rather than to Iraqis.

Mr. Horowitz is right. This isn’t a game. Please explain that to those gambling with Iraq’s future in a self-serving strategy to score political points against the president.

Reed Purcell

Everett