by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 5, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

reaching to the choir in Morgantown, W. Va., President George W. Bush commemorated the Fourth of July by telling a sympathetic crowd U.S. forces would stay in Iraq “until the fight is won,” signaling, if nothing else, that he has no intention of leaving Iraq. Since his polls reflected the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, Bush—and the White House spin machine—has been on a relentless public relations blitz to shore up sagging support. Bipartisan calls for a timetable on withdrawal prompted the president's June 28 primetime address, reminding anxious viewers why Iraq was worth the sacrifice. Bush now insists he has a “comprehensive strategy” for beating terrorists and winning the war. With escalating violence and growing U.S. casualties, Bush has ratcheted up the pro-war rhetoric, insisting that all he needs is more time to finish the current mission.

      Convincing voters that things are going well in Iraq has been a tough sell. Watching high-profile diplomats like Egyptian charge d'affaires Ihab Sherif abducted highlights the limits of U.S. security and dangers that persist in a war zone where abductions and beheading have become all too familiar. It's difficult convincing foreign governments—including the United Nations—that the U.S. and Iraq's new government can assure security for diplomatic personnel. Training Iraq's fledgling military and security forces has been slow going, attesting to (a) relentless opposition and, more importantly, (b) divided loyalty from Iraq's military and police. It's difficult to protect Iraq's new military and security forces from infiltration by forces loyal to Saddam's old regime and foreign terrorists trying to end U.S. occupation. Painting an overly rosy picture doesn't jibe with reality.

      Bucolic states like W. Va. share a disproportionate share of the burden for troops either killed or injured in Iraq. Along with other rural southern states, W. Va. Has moved into the GOP orbit, formerly a bastion of Democratic loyalty. With more “red” states sustaining deaths and injuries, it's difficult to explain Bush's solid grip on conservative territory. Southern religious conservatives aren't a gullible or expendable commodity for the GOP, despite showing more support than secularists from the Northeast and West Coast. “In this time of testing, our troops, whether they be stationed here or abroad, can know that the American people stand behind them al the way,” said Bush, assuming, of course, that support means commitment to Iraq. Growing numbers of citizens believe that supporting the troops involves questioning the president's strategy and getting U.S. forces out of harm's way.

      Bush believes that W. Va. stands solidly behind his Iraq policy, including keeping troops in the Iraq theater to finish the job. Bush insisted the best way to honor the fallen troops is to maintain the policy until the “fight is won.” No one wants to throw in the towel, but, unlike the White House, the U.S. must face reality. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a former Vietnam vet, reserves the right to disagree with the administration both about current progress and prospects for winning the Iraq war. During the early and middle phases of Vietnam, President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara were equally convinced, as Bush today, about the prospects for victory. Revisionists like to look back with “rose colored glasses,” blaming America's defeat in Vietnam on domestic unrest and a failure of will: In reality, the U.S. was beaten by a determined enemy.

      If there's any valid parallel with Vietnam, it's the fact that the White House shows the same resoluteness, despite realities on the ground. Twenty-seven months after the war began, the U.S. faces a growing, not weakening, insurgency, claiming more and more U.S. lives. Johnson and McNamara also cited victories on the battlefield, pointing toward unequivocal victory. While Bush will no doubt be given more time, the Iraq policy must be coldly evaluated in terms of the costs and loss of lives. Calling Iraq “the latest battlefield in the war on terror” doesn't mean that Iraq's terrorists and insurgents threaten U.S. national security or, for that matter, had any connection to Sept. 11. There's difference between preemptive warfare and deploying 25% of U.S. forces to rebuild and democratize Iraq. There's no evidence that the Iraq war will prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

      Instead of spending his Fourth of July selling the Iraq war, Bush should have celebrated U.S. Independence Day. No one expected to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to build a Democracy in Iraq or anywhere else. Bush routinely tells audiences that U.S. national security depends on creating a successful democracy in Iraq. Bush promised in 2000 he would never use the military for nation building. Yet he now finds himself engaged in the most costly nation-building project since the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after WW II. Unlike then, Iraq's reconstruction project costs U.S. lives. Without slowing down Iraq's insurgency, the U.S. faces unending casualties and bottomless drain on the treasury. Protecting the troops may require cutting U.S. losses. Bush may want to finish the job, but true loyalty to U.S. forces requires a sober inventory assessing the real prospects of “completing the mission.”

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral inventory 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.