Completing the Mission

This morning, I observed that John Kerry's op-ed calling for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2006 puts the Bush administration on the defensive. His proposal, I noted, will eventually require Bush to agree with it or explain why it cannot or should not be done. He will have to explain what the mission in Iraq is and what would constitute completing it.

Via Editor & Publisher, we learn this afternoon that Scott McClellan has not come around yet to explaining the mission in Iraq, but he is still willing to invoke it when responding to critics of Bush's handling of the war.

... McClellan, asked by reporters today about fresh calls for a U.S. withdrawal, said, “I think all Americans want our troops to come home. I think most Americans recognize the importance of succeeding in Iraq, as well. And I think most Americans want to see our troops achieve victory. And that's what's important. It's important that the Iraqi leaders continue to move forward and form a unity government that is based on strong leadership and represents -- that represents all Iraqis.

“And that's -- and we are continuing to keep our focus on the strategy for victory that the President has outlined. The worst thing we could do is withdraw before the mission is complete. And that would be retreating. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. But they cannot shake our will. They cannot -- we will not lose our nerve. The President understands the importance of a free Iraq for laying the foundations of peace for generations to come.”

So now, the obvious question is, what is the mission? What would constitute completing the mission? Why is that goal, whatever it is, worth even one more life?

The stock responses won't work anymore. We need real answers.