by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 18, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

aunching a new PR offensive, President George W. Bush took to the airwaves to counter sagging polls on his battered Iraq policy. Recent calls by some Democrats and fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill to set a timetable for withdrawing troops prompted the White House to take action. “The terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goals is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people,” Bush told his weekly radio audience, ignoring the inescapable reality that young Americans are dying in alarming numbers. Since the fall of Baghdad Oct. 4, 2003, a bloody guerrilla war has claimed nearly 1,600 U.S. lives, threatening to plunge Iraq into civil war. “We will settle for nothing less than victory,” insists Bush, signaling his unyielding resolve.

      Post-war planning didn't take into account of an unending insurgency, now engulfing U.S. troops. Without a coherent exit strategy, Bush's policy threatens U.S. forces now trapped in a shooting gallery. Despite minimizing U.S. casualties, public support for the Iraq War has dropped to all-time lows. Over 60% of Americans favor withdrawing some or all U.S troops. As the U.S. death toll rises, time is running out on Bush's ambitious plan of “democratizing the Middle East.” While the White House finds democracy its top priority, most Americans don't support sacrificing U.S. troops to achieve his goal. Americans accepted a more aggressive, preemptive foreign policy after Sept. 11. But using the U.S. military as bait to fight the war on terror in Iraq has caused far too many casualties. Instead of promising victory, Bush must look at the cost to the U.S. Treasury and American lives.

      Bush's tough talk and resolve on Iraq contrasts with the myth about hand-wringing and equivocation in Vietnam. When Nixon carpet-bombed Hanoi in Dec. 1972, his actions were anything but equivocal. U.S. forces were beaten in Vietnam not due to lack of resolve or domestic dissent but because Ho Chi Minh's guerrilla war was an irrepressible force, supported by immovable nationalism. Iraq's Islamic insurgency parallels the fervent guerrilla war fought by Ho's communist zealots, hell-bent on casting off the yoke of French colonialism. Former President Lyndon Johnson was equally convinced as Bush is today that victory was around the corner. Yet day-by-day, month-by-month and year-by-year, the Viet Kong wouldn't go away. It's only natural that as U.S. casualties mounted, public support and U.S. resolve weakened, somewhat analogous to the situation in Iraq.

      Dogged resoluteness has its place but won't change the facts on the ground, including relentless involvement by foreign governments and insidious infiltration by insurgents determined to see the U.S. fail. Bush is correct asserting that insurgents are testing U.S. resolve. But that goes with the territory. U.S. policy makers—including zealots at the White House or the Pentagon—must ask whether the costs justify the rewards. It's becoming obvious that the costs in terms blood and treasure, namely, lives and tax dollars, aren't justified. As the Sept. 11 Commission concluded, prewar intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction posing an unavoidable threat to U.S. national security were either honestly miscalculated or grossly exaggerated. Bush now rationalizes the war as “completing the U.S. mission with honor.” But the mission has become one of suicide for U.S. troops.

      Bush rejects any timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces but the longer he waits the more grief he's inflicting on American families. Asking soldiers to sacrifice their lives must be based on sound logic not wild speculation or vast plans about “transforming the Middle East.” “Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq the central front in the war on terror,” said Bush, stating the exact opposite of reality. Most agree removing Saddam was good thing. Most disagree that Iraq has become “the central front in the war on terror.” Terrorists and insurgents in Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11 or, for that matter, future attacks on U.S. soil. Iraq has become a magnet for terrorism precisely because of U.S. occupation. Using the troops as bait for terrorists is a bad strategy for the armed services.

      U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq can't assure the safety of their own troops. Unless troops are inside fortified encampments, like the “Green Zone” or military bases, forces are vulnerable to suicide bombings, roadside bombs and drive-by shootings. “The mission isn't easy, and it's not going to be accomplished overnight,” said Bush, asking for more time to train the Iraqi military and security services. But there's a real question about the loyalty of Iraq's fledgling forces, whose loyalty seems divided between the new government and terrorists fighting U.S. occupation. Too many attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces suggest sabotage or advanced warning from sources inside Iraq's new military or police. Whether the president likes it or not, it's healthy for the country to debate whether the costs justify the current mission: Suicide is not an option for the U.S. military.

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.