by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 27, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ending a dark cloud over Memorial Day, U.S. casualties for May topped 103, ranking the fifth bloodiest month since the Iraq war began March 20, 2003. Before getting pushed into early retirement in January, U.S. Centcom commander Gen. John P. Abizaid and Iraq's coalition commander George W. Casey warned Bush about a “troop surge” causing more U.S. casualties. Both urged President George W. Bush to heed the Iraq Study Group's advice to begin reducing conventional forces at the earliest date. Abizaid and Casey acknowledged the suicide mission of using U.S. forces to (a) rebuild the war-torn country and (b) apply conventional forces to win a bloody guerrilla war. Bush's troop surge has reduced sectarian strife around Baghdad but escalated U.S. casualties. Winning an unrestricted $100 billion war-funding bill, Bush shows no intent in setting a timetable for withdrawal.

      Since Cruise missiles hit Baghdad over four years ago, the White House changed it's excuse for war. When weapons of mass destruction weren't found, Bush found new excuses for sacrificing U.S. troops. No longer worried about a bloodbath, Bush insists that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq keeps terrorists off American streets. U.S. officials have never produced one shred of evidence that Iraqis or foreign fighters loosely linked to Osama bin Laden either attacked or plotted to attack the United States. “We're fighting a war over there because the enemy attacked us first,” Vice President Dick Cheney told 978 graduates of the U.S. military academy at West Point, N.Y., implying, in the strongest possible terms, that Iraqis, or those terrorists in Iraq associated with al-Qaida, were responsible for Sept. 11. There's no known connection to Iraqis or terrorists labeled as al-Qaida in Iraq.

      Democrats, like presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, aren't opposed to going after Osama bin Laden or terrorists responsible for Sept. 11, they refuse to allow Bush and Cheney to distort the record, insisting Iraqis or al-Qaida in Iraq were responsible for Sept. 11. Giving new multinational commander David Petraeus more cash and equipment doesn't change the mission impossible of fighting a guerrilla war with conventional forces. “These are the men who glorify murder and suicide. Terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds,” Cheney told West Point graduates, equating Iraq's insurgents with the same terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. No one denies that al-Qaida fights with Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq to end U.S. occupation. But U.S. forces shouldn't be used as bait for Islamic extremists flooding into Iraq to fight coalition forces.

      Warning the public about the bloody days ahead, Bush and Cheney hope to dampen opposition to a failed policy in which there's no military solution. While everyone awaits Petreus's progress report in September, more U.S. soldiers are slaughtered. “It could be a bloody—it could be a very difficult August,” Bush told a press conference May 24. If he looks at the 104 deaths in April or the 103 already in May, he'd acknowledge that U.S. forces have been taking a serious beating for nearly a year. Bush conveniently explains away casualties as terrorists' efforts to get the U.S. to quit. Bush, Cheney and most congressional Republicans blame Democrats for “surrendering,” when, in fact, the White House and Pentagon have no real plan for winning the war. It's difficult getting the upper hand when the Iraq's insurgency is supported by foreign governments and Iraq's own population.

      When Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the war was “lost” April 19, the GOP recoiled, accusing Democrats of acting defeatist and “surrendering.” It's not “surrendering” to face reality and plot a new strategy to save American lives. It doesn't dishonor fallen soldiers to right a failed policy that only weakens and drains the U.S. military. “We're doing heavy fighting. This is a fight. There as war on out there,” said Bush, admitting the U.S., not the Iraqis, are doing the heavy lifting. While Bush vetoed a funding bill calling for timetables and recently beat back benchmarks for Iraqis, the fact remains that the U.S. shouldn't die for Iraqis' lack the stomach to fight their own battle. For over four years, the White House explained away rising violence as a temporary event. While denied by the White House and Iraq's new government, insurgents and terrorists are supported by the people.

      No one disparages the ultimate sacrifice made by U.S. forces. Watching U.S. troops slaughtered in Iraq causes anti-war activists like Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to redouble efforts for the earliest possible withdrawal. Democrats lacked the votes to de-fund the war by placing timetables and benchmarks on continued funding. As consequences to the GOP become more obvious as the election nears, it's going to be difficult for Bush to maintain the current policy. U.S. forces can't take most of the casualties while Iraqis can't decide whether they want U.S. occupation. “We're going to see a spike in the short term,” said military expert Stephen Biddle with the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, giving the same old claptrap. It's an unhappy Memorial Day when more excuses prevent the White House from facing reality and finally changing strategy.

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.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.