by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 19, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

atching Iraq come unglued, the White House faces growing impatience, explaining how they plan to democratize a country descending into anarchy and civil war. When President George H. W. Bush evicted Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, he was criticized for not marching to Baghdad. Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin L. Powell warned that toppling Saddam would result in a power vacuum, potentially giving rise to more extreme forms of radical Islam. After all, Saddam—though tyrannical—was a secularist, more easy to deal with than Muslim fundamentalists, whether Sunnis or Shiites. Toppling Saddam answered critics of the first Gulf War but created a nightmare or worse case scenario for the Pentagon: An unending guerrilla war and killing field for U.S. troops. Heading into November, President Bush faces some tough choices.

     Nearly a year-and-a-half after declaring “mission accomplished” and an end to formal combat operations, the ongoing low intensity war has killed over one-thousand U.S. troops. Administrations officials keep blaming the violence on foreign “terrorists” and Iraqi insurgents trying to sabotage U.S. occupation. Just as Bush plans to ask the U.N. to help “create a safer world,” U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan condemned the U.S. invasion as violating international law. Anan mirrors the view of Russia, France and Germany, believing that the U.S. had no legal ground for invading Iraq—certainly not the excuse that Iraq threatened U.S. national security. “Terrorist enemies are trying to stop the progress of both those countries, and their violent and merciless attacks may increase as elections draw near,” said Bush, concerned that Iraq and Afghanistan have generated bad publicity.

     Growing cracks within the Republican Party also don't look good heading into November. While Kerry hasn't made a dent yet, more chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan chips away at Bush's credibility, but, more importantly, his foreign policy. With growing anarchy in Iraq, Bush sought to reassure the public. “But all the world can be certain: America and our allies will keep our commitments to the Afghan and Iraqi people,” Bush told a nationwide radio audience, letting voters know in no uncertain terms he intends—regardless of the costs—to stay the course. Without a midcourse correction, the U.S. military faces an uphill battle defeating a growing guerrilla war, with no signs of letting up. A recently leaked CIA report offered little reassurance, predicting more instability and possibly a civil war. Members of Bush's own party are beginning to question his overly optimistic Iraq policy.

     When Bush speaks to the U.N. next week, it's going to be a tough sell asking for more allied support. Great Britain already announced plans to scale back its troop strength in Basra and Iraq's Shiite controlled lands. NATO also isn't in a generous mood. With anarchy in Sunni controlled Fallujah, sabotage in Iraq's northern provinces and growing chaos in Shiite dominated south, especially since interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi granted amnesty to renegade Shiite terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr, the CIA's forecast for civil war doesn't seem that farfetched. “The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq . . . and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on CBS' “Face the Nation,” acknowledging that Bush's current policy creates less security and more instability. Few changes are expected anytime before November.

     Bush's chief strategy heading into the elections involves painting Kerry as an appeaser, incapable of handling U.S. national security. GOP criticism of Bush's Iraq policy tears at his chief argument for reelection. Kerry will continue to hammer Bush on his Iraq policy. A little help from Bush's GOP friends improves Kerry's chances, raising more doubts about Bush's foreign policy. When Allawi gave al-Sadr sanctuary, he sold out U.S. forces. It's clear that the interim Iraqi leader has more concern about preserving Shiite terrorists that protecting U.S. troops. If Bush heeded Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) suggestion to raise troop strength, it would be political suicide approaching the election. While there's considerable flack about using the National Guard and reservists, adding more troops represents a sign of failure. Talk about a draft or adding more troops won't happen till after the election.

     Talking about rosy picture in Iraq is now at odds with the nightly news—and common sense. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney keep talking up Iraq and Afghanistan, pointing to the millions of people registered to vote. With growing anarchy, it's unrealistic to talk about holding elections, or, for that matter, democratizing the countries. It's fine to beef up Iraq's power grid, build more schools and construct new hospitals but not at the expense of more U.S. troops. Racing against time, the Pentagon is doing its utmost to recruit and train more Iraqi troops and police. But with Iraq's Prime Minister turning loose thugs like Muqtada al-Sadr, it's clear that the current Iraqi government opposes U.S. occupation more than it supports the rise of order and democracy. Convincing voters that the Iraq war will keep terrorists off U.S. streets is getting tougher all the time.

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.