Reid’s words of infamy

It was Thursday, April 19, 2007. Support for the war on terror in the battlefield of Iraq flagged as violence escalated against American soldiers standing on our behalf in harm's way.

George W. Bush faced a critical decision in his presidency. Stand down or press forward. He did not retreat. Instead, he doubled down on troops dedicated to Iraq and charged a little-known general by the name of David Petraeus to win the war.

We were in it to win it, and the effort came to be known as the "surge."

In the wake of that decision, before a single additional soldier's boot had hit the ground in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called a news conference to express his dismay with Bush's decision. Sen. Reid uttered these four words of infamy: "This war is lost."

Friend and foe took note as one of Washington's most powerful men proclaimed America's war effort "lost." Sen. Reid took big heat for making that statement, and he deserved every bit of it. It was an outrageous thing to say -- the war is lost? -- while our soldiers were still in the battlefield.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ironically in Reid's home state of Nevada at the time, replied that the only thing lost was Reid's "sense of priority."

But Sen. Reid refused to back down or say he was sorry: "My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

More than three years later, history proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Bush made the right call. Harry didn't. The war was not lost.

In fact, once the "surge" became fully implemented, brave American forces almost immediately turned the tide.

And today, the benefits of the "surge" allow President Barack Obama the luxury to divert troops away from Iraq and into Afghanistan.

One can only wonder what a fix we'd be in today had America retreated, let Iraq slip into tribal violence (or worse), and then attempted to win the war Harry's way -- "diplomatically, politically and economically." Diplomacy with whom? Al-Qaida?

Look, the argument of what might have been -- or even how best to fight the war on terror then and now -- is not what made Reid's remarks so alarming.

What makes Reid's remarks nearly unforgivable is that today, through the lens of hindsight, we not only can see that he was wrong about the war being lost, we can see that there is good reason to question whether Sen. Reid told the truth when he said his remarks were those of "conscience."

If, indeed, he spoke from the heart then about how best to prosecute the war on terror in the battlefield in Iraq, why is he not also speaking from the heart now about our strategy in the battlefield of Afghanistan?

The circumstances are almost identical.

In 2007, Sen. Reid opposed the Iraq "surge" and questioned publicly the integrity of Bush's general -- David Petraeus.

In 2010, Reid supports the Afghanistan "surge" and gushes public praise for Obama's general -- David Petraeus.

Sen. Reid owes the country an explanation. He can start with Nevadans, who must decide in November whether he's fit to send back to Washington. But in the end, he must stand accountable to the soldiers who won his "lost" war.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@review journal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.