by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 13, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

ith his approval ratings and reelection on the line, President Bush called an unexpected press conference, hoping to stem mounting political baggage from Iraq and the Sept. 11. Bad news dominates the headlines, especially Iraq’s growing anarchy and embarrassing revelations about 9/11. More than 80 combat deaths in just the last two weeks pushed Bush to pitch his best case for staying the course. “I’m interested in answering more questions for you all,” Bush told the White House press at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, after jointly appearing with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Bush must convince an itchy public and skeptical press that the U.S. is winning the peace, despite graphic images to the contrary. Without finding Iraq a threat to national security, it’s becoming difficult to justify more casualties and punishing drain on the national treasury.

      Blaming Iraq’s unrest on “bands of thugs,” President Bush sought to discount growing nationalism, threatening to crack the delicate coalition comprising a plurality of Iraqis. Ordering the assassination of militant Iraqi cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr, Bush cracked down on a dangerous insurgency, threatening to upend coalition goals. U.S. forces now surround and wait for a possible all-out assault on al-Sadr and his Mehdi militia. Yet, wiping al-Sadr off the map won’t reverse growing discontent, linking Shiites, Sunnis and foreign terrorists to fight U.S. occupation. With his poll numbers slipping, Bush must convince skeptical voters that Iraq represents “the central front in the war on terror.” Rising casualties and the prospects of depleting U.S. troops raise the specter reinstating the draft. With volunteer recruiting down, using guardsman and reservists won’t shore up sagging deficiencies.

      Bush’s faces nagging doubts about missing weapons of mass destruction. Without national security concerns in Iraq, it’s hard excusing the continued loss of American life. Reconstruction can’t proceed with civilian personnel fair game for Iraqi insurgents. European, Asian and other multinational contractors express growing concerns about safety, increasing pressure on expanding U.S. troops. Adding troops during an election year creates a bad impression, especially since Defense Secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld advocated a leaner, meaner fighting machine. Rising anarchy and defections by the new Iraqi army prompted Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of the Central Command, to ask the Joint-Chiefs-of-staff for two more divisions, roughly 7,000 to 10,000 troops. It’s not too reassuring knowing that current deployments—especially aging reservists and guardsmen—can't get it done.

      Promising to “finish the job,” Bush ignored growing concerns that Iraq presents an ongoing nightmare to U.S. forces. With Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia arming and sending insurgents into Iraq, the Pentagon must explain how it plans to fight and win an effective guerrilla war. Beefing up troop strength, applying deadly force to set down growing insurgencies and supplying more lethal weapons won’t change the hearts-and-minds of rank-and-file Iraqis struggling with Bush’s future plan, including, turning sovereignty over to handpicked puppets. Handing off power to Ahmed Chalabi or other corrupt leaders invites uprisings and civil war. Bush hasn’t explained how he can “democratize” Iraq without turning the government over to a Shiite majority loyal to Iran’s fanatical Islamic leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. Bush can’t afford to “stay the course” at all costs.

      Iraq oozes terrorists not because Saddam’s regime armed, trained and subsidized radicals but precisely because U.S. occupation created a magnet for Islamic extremists. Sure, Saddam displayed virulent anti-American hatred and even financed Palestinian suicide bombers but his Republican guard, Saddam Fedayeen and Baath party secret police kept foreign terrorists from threatening his power. Bush hasn’t come to grips with how he plans to stop endless waves of Islamists streaming into Iraq to wage “holy war” against the U.S. “The violence we’ve seen is a power grab by . . . extreme and ruthless elements,” Bush told a nationwide press conference, grossly underestimating the depth of resistance to U.S. occupation. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, Al Qaeda, have seized the opportunity to inflict maximum casualties, aiding, abetting and supplying unending terrorists to fight America.

      Poised to do battle with 30-year-old, charismatic Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, 2,500 U.S. troops stand ready to massacre his Mehdi militia, currently holding the holy city of Najaf, barricaded in the Iman Ali Mosque—Shiites’ holiest site. Martyring al-Sadr will release unending “holy war,” guaranteeing chaos and instability into the foreseeable future. “I think that analogy is false,” said Bush, rejecting the idea that Iraq is rapidly becoming another Vietnam. Like Iraq, Vietnam had an endless supply of guerrilla fighters—the Viet Cong—ready to fight foreign forces to the death. Yet, unlike Vietnam, or even Afghanistan for that matter, the U.S. has no real ally—like the South Vietnamese or Northern Alliance—inside Iraq to help fight the battle against terror. Before Bush commits to “finish the fight of the fallen,” he should think about the last time the U.S. tried to fight a guerrilla war.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.