by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 8, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

aunching a major PR offensive to defend the Iraq War, President George W. Bush compares the war on terror to the Cold War, salvaging flagging support amidst growing public skepticism. Recent polls show Bush's Iraq policy losing support even among GOP loyalists, believing the endless blank check hurts the U.S. economy and endangers U.S. forces. Conflicting public remarks about the preparedness of Iraqi forces and the growing dependence on U.S. troops indicates the White House and Pentagon aren't on the same page. Only a few days ago, the Pentagon advocated drawing down U.S. troops to (a) reduce antagonizing Middle East governments and (b) reduce Iraq's dependence on the U.S. military. Saying that extremists in Iraq are trying to “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia,” Bush seeks to put new teeth into his Iraq policy.

      Comparing Iraq to the epic struggle against post-WWII communism, Bush hopes to give the Iraq conflict urgent support—the same hyperbole used to justify invading Iraq March 20, 2003. Back then, it was Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Now it's the global threat of Islamo-fascism. “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism,” Bush told an audience at the National Endowment for Democracy, a Washington nonprofit advocacy group. It's beyond ironic that Bush's key strategist Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove finds himself in hot water for possibly outing Valerie Plame, the wife of former Iraq envoy Joseph P. Wilson IV, for criticizing Bush in the New York Times about exaggerating the Iraqi threat. Equating the insurgency in Iraq to the Cold War far eclipses bogus claims in the 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam sought “yellocake” uranium from Niger.

      Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was not Osama bin Laden's base of global terrorism. While Saddam gave sanctuary to a few terrorist fugitives or helped fund Palestinian suicide bombing, Iraq was not the base of global terrorism. Today's insurgency in Iraq parallels the efforts of Bin Laden's mujahedeen in the early 1980s to expel Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. President Jimmy Carter protested the Soviet's 1979 invasion by canceling U.S. participation in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Back then, Carter and incoming President Ronald Reagan gave Bin Laden's Afghan freedom fighters billions to fight Soviet occupation. No one talked about Islamo-fascism then when it was aimed at Moscow. Now Moscow supports Bin Laden and various terrorist networks to expel the U.S. from Iraq. Without Saddam's authoritarian regime, Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists.

      Bush's latest speech is yet another attempt to justify the ongoing Iraq War. When WMD were not found, the White House shifted attention to the importance of democratizing Iraq. Bush tried to establish linkage between democracy and halting the dangerous radicalization threatening the region. When casualties and costs mounted and public opinion headed south, Bush found a new angle, this time warning about a vast radical Islamic empire. There's absolutely no evidence of any organized effort, by Bin Laden or anyone else, to resurrect the next Ottoman Empire or anything else. Al Qaeda remains an outlaw terror organization designed hijack Islamic media and stage various deadly publicity stunts, like Sept. 11. That's a far cry from Bush's new theory that an organized extremist movement is attempting to “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

      Bush continues to hammer a link between Iraq and Sept. 11. “We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,” said Bush, insisting that Iraq didn't cause Islamic terrorism. “The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse,” ironically making the point that Iraq has become a costly detour in the war in terror. If it's true that Iraq didn't cause Islamic extremism—especially Sept. 11—then what possible justification was there for the Iraq War? Without Saddam's iron grip, anarchy—and possibly civil war—has returned to Iraq, the exact concern during the Gulf War compelling Bush-41 to leave Saddam in power. Now that Saddam's out, the U.S. must endure the losses or be prepared to watch Iraq split apart along ethnic lines—something that actually might solve Iraq's security problems.

      Continued U.S. presence in Iraq allows the fledgling government time to build up security with the expectation of drawing down dependence. Without a strong U.S. presence, it's likely that ethnic strife will lead to civil war, breaking Iraq into at least three separate regions comprising Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south. Once this occurs, it's also likely that Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites will move quickly to reject foreign terrorists now fighting U.S. occupation. Without sharing oil revenue, Sunnis might use foreign fighters to attack Kurdish and Shiite strongholds. Even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld now believes the U.S. will not defeat Iraq's insurgency. No concocted theory about radical Islam should compel U.S. forces to stay any longer than necessary. Creating a new “domino theory” doesn't give any better excuse for staying the course.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColulmnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.