by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 26, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

aging a fierce propaganda war to save his presidency and prepare the battlefield for the ‘06 elections, President George W. Bush launched an all-out offensive to rescue his Iraq policy. With the death toll rising and a sizable majority now believing Iraq was a mistake, Bush has opened up multiple fronts in the PR battle. Worried that he's losing domestic support, Bush pressed his message on the airwaves during his weekly radio broadcast. “We can expect more tough fighting in the weeks and months ahead,” said Bush, tamping-down expectations while battlefield casualties mount. “Yet I am confident in the outcome,” failing to specify what he means by the “outcome.” While it's easy to assume victory, the “outcome” might be eventual U.S. withdrawal. When Vice President Dick Cheney declared the insurgency was in its “last throes,” it was a deliberate attempt to buy more time.

      When Defense Secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld contradicted Cheney's remarks, speculating it could take years to defeat the insurgency, a growing credibility problem surfaced. “I didn't use them, and I might not use them,” said Rumsfeld, distancing himself from the vice president, yet leaving himself an out. When Rumsfeld said the insurgency would take “years” to defeat, he was referring Iraq's fledgling military and police, commissioned with the unhappy task of taking over from U.S. troops. “That insurgency could go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years,” said Rumsfeld, making mincemeat out of Cheney's words that the insurgency was in its “last throes.” Cheney's office made a special point to stretch the definition of “throes” to the breaking point. Reconciling the contradictions in advance of Bush's June 28 pep-talk to the nation, Rumsfeld spoke about Iraqis joining the battle.

      For two years the White House and Pentagon have talked about ramping up the new Iraqi military and security services. In his Last State-of-the-Union address, Bush praised great progress building up the Iraqi military and police yet they can't defend themselves without U.S. help. Critics like Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, want a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, if, for no other reason, to push Iraqis to take more responsibility. Speaking for the opposition, former Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski refreshed the old prewar argument that Saddam didn't possess weapons-of-mass-destruction and was not a threat to U.S. national security, namely, that America has no business in Iraq. Bush's continues to link Iraq to Sept. 11 and claims it's “the central front in the war on terror.”

      When Bush takes to the airwaves to resuscitate his Iraq policy, he will make the same old argument, counseling patience while the troops make progress. Bush opposes calls even within his own Party for time limits because it sends the wrong message to terrorists. Stubborn resistance won't charm away an insurgency that is supported by rogue states or phony allies currently selling sophisticated weapons to terrorists. Bush asks young Americans serving the all voluntary-military to pay the ultimate price with the rationale that the Iraq war helps U.S. national security. Growing public opinion reflects the view that the Iraq war is no longer serving U.S. national security. “We don't need to fight the war looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home,” Gen. John P. Abizaid head of Centcom in the Middle East told Wolf Blitzer on CNN's “Late Edition.”

      Abizaid's remarks hark back to the Vietnam era when the Pentagon claimed that antiwar protests undermined U.S. resolve. Rumsfeld likes to point out that there aren't widespread demonstrations opposing the Iraq war yet can't explain the current drop in public support. Without a draft, of course protests are limited right now. Strategists at the White House and Pentagon know that a draft would galvanize mass protests and kill the current mission. High-ranking military and elected officials can't tell the public what the troops don't need in the way of public criticism. Troops in the field need active interest and involvement by the press and public to shape U.S. policy. If the people feel the mission isn't right, it's up to the White House and Pentagon to get it right, including, if necessary, revising the policy and changing directions. Someone has to be concerned about the loss of young American lives.

      Bush's top priority should be protecting the American public, especially citizens currently serving in the voluntary military asked to give up their lives. Protecting the troops means more than providing sophisticated equipment: It involves evaluating policies that place American citizens in harm's way. Sept 11 killed nearly 3,000 U.S. citizens. Bush's response, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, has claimed nearly 1,800 more lives. Complaining now about missing weapons-of-mass-destruction is water under the bridge. Whether Brzenzinki's right about the White House's “strategic and tactical incompetence” is anyone's guess. What we do know is that (a) Iraq's insurgency isn't going away and (b) U.S. troops are losing their lives in alarming numbers. Instead of selling the public on the rationale for Iraq, Bush should be explaining the real costs in terms of lives and tax dollars.

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.