by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 15, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

andcuffing the military in Iraq, the White House faces a stubborn dilemma heading into November: It must contain growing disapproval for President Bush's Iraq policy, yet, at the same time, prosecute the war on terror. With his approval ratings sinking, Iraq promises to make or break Bush's reelection. More violence, chaos and instability gives the picture that Iraq is out-of-control—without a way out. Faced with handing over sovereignty June 30, the White House confronts another dilemma: Allowing the U.N.'s Lakhdar Brahimi to pick a new government unfriendly to U.S. interests. So far, Bush resisted sacrificing control to the U.N.—preferring instead to handpick members of Iraq's governing council. If the U.N. gets its way, picks a new government and holds free elections in 2005, Iraq will become the world's next Shiite theocracy.

      Restive Kurds and disgruntled Sunnis promise to plunge the country into civil war, battling Shiites for control. It took 25 years of Saddam's brutal Baathist rule to reign in Iraq's long history of tribal warfare. Free elections would serve no group other than Iraq's Shiite majority, roughly 65% of the population. Bush's stunning reversal, allowing Brahimi to pick an interim government, frightens members of Iraq's governing council, especially Ahmad Chalabi—The White House's pick to lead an interim government. Instead of dealing with deteriorating realities, political calculations drive Iraq policy. Playing red-light/green-light, telling the military to start-and-stop now endangers U.S. troops unable to complete pressing assignments, especially dealing with dangerous insurgents. Draining the national treasury and mounting casualties turn off growing numbers of registered voters.

      When Bush asked the congress to support U.N. Resolution 1441 in Dec. 2002, they did so because Saddam presented a threat to U.S. national security. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 6, 2003 U.N. presentation offered powerful proof of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Congress authorized the Pentagon's initial request for $87 billion largely based on Powell's word. Yet new information confirms that Powell's case was built on fake intelligence supplied by the brother-in-law of Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress and key point man for deposing Saddam Hussein. Chalabi sits on Iraq's governing council and hopes to run Iraq after the U.N. picks a new government June 30. With Bush's initial mission accomplished—toppling Saddam and clearing WMD—he now asks voters to sacrifice money and lives to liberate 25 million Iraqis.

      Mounting casualties and a growing hemorrhage to the national treasury has left Bush sinking in the polls. With Iraq dominating the headlines, especially the recent prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison and the widely publicized beheading of Nick Berg, likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) sits back and watches Bush self-destruct. A recent Newsweek poll confirms Bush's tailspin, showing his approval ratings at 48%—a dangerous threshold for reelection. While anything can happen between now and November—including capturing Osama bin Laden—current trends look bad for the White House. No matter how many battles the Pentagon wins, they're losing an unending guerrilla war supported by Iran, Syria, Sudan and, yes, Saudi Arabia. Bush's mission to “democratize” Iraq and “transform” the Middle East is in serious doubt.

      Dishing plans to design a new government to Brahimi and the U.N. won't solve the basic problem facing Iraq: Providing security against a bloody guerrilla war. With kidnapping, abductions and murder on the rise, it's difficult persuading the U.N and NATO to commit resources to Iraq. No matter what Brahimi does, insurgents—especially foreign terrorists—won't end their bloody campaign against U.S. occupation. Iraq has become not, at the White House insists, “the central front in the war on terror,” but rather a lightening rod for Islamists fighting “holy war” against the U.S. Placating Baathists or Sunni Muslims—including assigning them to key political or security posts—won't stop Shiites from the current power grab designed to turn Iraq into another Islamic theocracy loyal to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, committed to recreating ancient Persia.

      Caught in a bloody guerrilla war, Bush finds it more difficult selling his new mission of liberating Iraq. With casualties mounting and Abu Ghraib still in the headlines, the White House faces a tough sell getting another blank check from Congress. Gone are the days when Iraq was conveniently linked to Sept. 11, making his case for war more convincing. While it's alarming that 70% of Republicans believe Saddam was connected to 9/11, growing numbers see Iraq as a wasteful detour. Bush's sinking popularity directly mirrors a change in public opinion: That the benefits in Iraq no longer outweigh extreme financial and human costs. Despite Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's dour predictions, seventy-four million baby boomers won't sacrifice their Social Security to liberate Iraq. Without an abrupt change of plans, Bush faces a growing political liability heading into November.

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.