by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 21, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

eading into midyear elections, President George W. Bush repeated the same worn out talking points, convincing voters that Iraq is the “central front in the war on terror,” prompting bipartisan objections. When Iraq's Al Qaeda operative Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was killed June 8, Bush's Iraq link to Osama bin Laden and global terror was broken. Since going to war in Iraq March 20, 2003, Bush has insisted that fighting in Iraq keeps terrorists off American streets, despite the best evidence that Al Zarqawi played a negligible role in Iraq's insurgency, euphemistically called “sectarian strife.” Many experts believe that Iraq has already descended into “civil war,” with Sunnis and Shiites battling for supremacy. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East,” Bush told a national radio audience, sounding like a broken record.

      Bush's approval ratings remain around 36%, largely because of Iraq. With less than three months before the midyear elections, the GOP has growing concerns about Bush's Iraq policy. While it's too early to predict whether congress will change hands, Bush's low approval ratings don't help fellow Republicans. There's no time to revamp or waffle on the current policy that has resulted in over 2,600 U.S. deaths. Quibbling over whether Iraq has descended into “civil war” also dogs the administration, splitting hairs over the difference between “sectarian strife” and insurgent violence. For the 3,500 Iraqis that lost their lives in July, the distinctions are meaningless. To the White House, “civil war” represents total failure where Iraq's so-called “unity” government can't reverse endless violence, leaving Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in chaos—something the U.S. military can't stop.

      Justification for invading Iraq hinged on Saddam's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Some Pentagon and administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, still believe the WMD has yet to be found. Without WMD, Bush justifies the Iraq mission as the “keystone” in the fight against terror. Bush frequently views Iraq as taking “the battle to the enemy,” despite the fact Iraq has no ties to Bin Laden or global terrorism. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them,” said Bush, implying that unchecked terrorism in Iraq will spill onto American soil. Using the British-foiled Aug. 12 Islamic terror plot, Bush continues to make the link between Iraq's insurgents and the recent global terror plot, when there's no such connection.

      Running scared before the midyear elections, the White House has gotten on the same page as the Republican National Committee, busy engaging in damage control on Iraq, while, at the same time, blasting Democrats for being weak on defense. There's nothing more weak than squandering valuable U.S. assets on a failed policy that attempts to unrealistically reverse centuries of antipathy among Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Today's sectarian bloodshed re-ignited when the U.S. toppled Saddam's authoritarian regime April 9, 2003. Only Saddam's brutal repression kept Iraq's warring factions from exploding into “civil war.” “We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we'll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” Bush said, repeating more platitudes, designed to reverse his unrelenting slide in the polls.

      Bush's vast scheme to reverse the course of Mideast history goes way beyond the mandate of protecting U.S. national security. Inventing a new geopolitical landscape by committing billions of precious U.S. tax dollars and American lives also goes beyond any constitutional mandate. Creating false promises and a phony national security rationale about how reconstructing the Middle East will somehow prevent the next terror attack can't pass unnoticed. Whatever happens to GOP fortunes in November, Bush doesn't have a license to exaggerate the dangers of global terrorism, loot the national treasury and sacrifice more U.S. lives. Wasting more tax dollars on Iraq and spreading the U.S. military too thin, compromises domestic and foreign policy resources, including meeting the Social Security and Medicare obligations of 70-million baby boomers and dealing with an Iranian nuclear threat.

      White House officials should stop playing election-year politics with U.S. terrorism policy. There's no connection between Iraq's insurgency or “civil war” and terrorism likely to find its way on American soil. Iraq's disparate groups need to either resolve their differences diplomatically or carve-out a new geopolitical map. Wasting more U.S. lives and tax dollars weakens U.S. national security by diverting essential domestic and foreign policy assets. Bush has an obligation to meet the Social Security and Medicare obligations of soon-to-be retiring boomers. He must also redouble efforts to prevent Tehran from enriching uranium and building its first atomic bomb. Bush's plan to democratize the Middle East threatens U.S. domestic and foreign policy. No economy can afford the astronomical price tag of realigning and reconstructing the Middle East.

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.