WorldNetDaily: Is Bush adopting a Nixon strategy?

Pat Buchanan writes:

"While Bush continues to insist Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and will never be abandoned 'on my watch,' U.S. war policy is emerging as a 21st-century version of 'Vietnamization.'

"For the president just wagered the ultimate success or failure of this mission on the ability of Iraqis themselves. 'As the Iraqis stand up,' said Bush, 'we will stand down.'

"Clearly, the president has heard the message of an impatient country. His rhetoric has been reconfigured to conform to reality...

"Bush appears to have begun to understand that for many Iraqis, the cause of this war – why they fight – is that we are there. They do not have to love Saddam to want Americans gone...

"There is another reason Bush will not be sending 100,000 more troops. The Army, Reserves, Marines and National Guard are failing to meet recruiting and re-enlistment quotas. Soon, Bush will not even have the option of sending another 100,000 troops, unless he is prepared to go to Congress and ask for a draft...

"Democracy may be the antidote to terrorism, Bush is saying, and democracy may be the future of the Middle East, but democracy is not going to be brought in on the turrets of Abrams tanks. Whether the Arabs are free will depend on the Arabs themselves. And that is as it should be...

"Thus, whether we win or lose this war is going to come down to the question it came down to for Nixon – as he pungently put it in the early 1970s – 'Can the Vietnamese hack it?'

"Can the Iraqis hack it? Can Iraqis build up their political institutions and military and security forces not only to take over from the Americans, but to win a war the Americans were unable to win? The answer to that question will give us the answer to a far greater question: Will Iraq be a historic triumph for the United States and George Bush, or is it destined to end in a defeat and a debacle more disastrous than Vietnam?

"What persuades me we are headed for a crisis is that, within the president's speech, lies a contradiction. He calls the war in Iraq 'vital to the future security of our country' – i.e., defeat would be life-threatening for America.

"But if victory is vital to this country, how can President Bush ever entrust the outcome of this war to Iraqis? If victory is vital, how can he rule out more troops? If victory is vital, how can he even rule out a draft?

"Has President Bush thought this through?"

WorldNetDaily: Is Bush adopting a Nixon strategy?