by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 8, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

ddressing a national TV audience, President George W. Bush tried to stem growing criticism over his Iraq policy, leading to a steady erosion in his approval ratings, now hovering around 50%. Bush told the nation that Iraq was now the “central front” in the war on terrorism, promising to seek better international support to help pay a whopping $87 billion price tag, estimated for the next fiscal year. “We will do what is necessary, and we will spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure,” said Bush, signaling, in no uncertain terms, that there is no exit strategy in sight. By placing Iraq on the frontlines in the war on terrorism, Bush once again justifies the mission based on national security. Though Congress is expected to grant Bush's request, Iraq will surely become a pivotal issue in the '04 elections.

      Last fall, the White House waged a fierce public relations battle, insisting that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction threatened U.S. national security, culminating in Sec. of State Colin A. Powell's powerful Feb. 6 multimedia speech to the U.N. Security Council, giving satellite proof of WMD. When the U.N. didn't bite, the White House embarked on a new “preemptive” strategy, justifying war on the basis of perceived threats to national security. Discounting the work of Dr. Hans Blix and his team of U.N. weapons inspectors, the U.S. waged war on Iraq March 20 for the expressed purpose of disarming Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Since Baghdad fell on April 9, U.S. forces found no weapons of mass destruction, despite insisting that Iraq represents a threat to U.S. national security. Since the end of formal combat operations on May 1, the mission has now changed.

      Bush's speech switched gears, announcing that “Iraq's reconstruction”—not Saddam's disarmament—was the current mission, prompting his request for an additional $87 billion. But beyond the cash, the president is asking American troops—and indeed the international community—to sacrifice lives for Iraq's reconstruction. “We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, now on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power,” declared Bush four days before the second anniversary of Sept. 11, fingering Saddam Hussein—not Osama bin Laden—for terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Osama bin Laden—not Saddam Hussein —was responsible Sept. 11. Bin Laden and his key henchmen remain fugitives in the no-man's-land between Afghanistan and Pakistan, not, as Bush suggests, in Iraq.

      Seeking a new U.N resolution for international help in Iraq, Bush hopes to add multinational forces and defray astronomical costs. Yet opponents to the war, especially France, Germany and Russia, have serious reservations about committing troops and money without the U.S. ceding control to the U.N. Only two weeks ago, terrorists blew up the U.N. headquarters, killing 20, including the brilliant 55-year-old Brazilian U.N. chief Sergio Vieria de Mello—a tragic loss to the world body. “Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world,” said Bush, encouraging the U.N. to join the U.S.'s battle with Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists, now sabotaging Iraq. But unlike the U.S., the U.N. didn't wage war on Iraq, encouraging Islamic radicals to now make Iraq their new cause celebre against the West.

      Like the Russians in Chechnya, the U.S. finds itself battling indigenous Islamists and Arab terrorists seeking to expel the U.S. and other foreign forces. Now equated with the U.S., the U.N. has become a target of Islamic radicals, creating problems for all foreign troops or personnel engaged in peacekeeping. Now magnet for terrorists since the fall of Baghdad, Bush identifies Iraq as the “central front” for the war on terror. Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. and foreign intelligence speculated that Saddam was building A-bombs and biological and chemical weapons. Since the war ended, those same agencies—including the International Atomic Energy Agency—now point to Iran and North Korea, feverishly pursuing atomic weapons. With no WMD found and Iraq no longer a threat, White House calls Iraq its “central front” in the war on terror, apparently due to the presence of foreign terrorists.

      Bush insists that the current U.S. strategy involves “destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.” “Winning the peace in Iraq is essential to winning the war on terrorism,” said House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas), reinforcing the idea that Iraq is indeed the “central front” in the war on terrorism. Without finding WMD, the White House changed the mission to “democratizing” Iraq by picking leaders friendly to the U.S. By committing the U.S. to “finish the job,” Bush has given Iraq a blank check and endangered U.S. forces currently sitting ducks in a bitter guerrilla war. Before going to war, no one talked about “liberating” Iraq—only disarmament. Battling terrorists in Iraq won't contain Iran, North Korea or a global menace like Osama Bin Laden busy plotting his next attack.

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.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.