by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 11, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

eading into the 2004 elections, Iraq takes center stage in what promises to be a make-or-break issue. Despite mounting casualties, Bush finds himself unable to escalate the conflict or, for that matter, change directions. Any change of heart before the election would be perceived as failure, something the White House can ill-afford. Yet, the more the situation deteriorates, the more critics can legitimately question the overall mission, including the original premise of eradicating weapons of mass destruction. Questions about prewar intelligence and the failure to find WMD, leaves the White House scrambling for a new rationale. “Freedom can be the future of every nation,” Bush told the National Endowment for Democracy, a federally funded nonprofit, dedicated to spreading democracy around the planet, offering a plausible excuse for a long-term commitment in Iraq.

      When the president cited Saddam's attempt to buy yellocake uranium from Niger his State of the Union speech, Iraq's threat to national security seemed unavoidable. In the wake of Sept. 11, that stone couldn't be left unturned. More speculation about biological and chemical weapons convinced congress—and indeed most Americans—that preemptive action and specifically regime change, was the only option. No mention was made then of democratizing Iraq or the entire Middle East. Before Cruise missiles hit Baghdad March 20, the White House was concerned about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Once toppled, Saddam no longer presented the same threat to U.S. national security. According to the White House, Iraq has now become “the central front in the war on terror.” Every Islamic terrorist on the planet has joined the “jihad” to fight U.S. occupation.

      Toppling the Taliban and Saddam sent a loud signal to America's enemies, including Osama bin Laden's suicide squad responsible Sept. 11. Yet, American firepower alone won't change the hearts and minds of radicals preaching hate in the Middle East. Attacking Saudi Arabia on Nov. 8, Bin Laden served notice that he intends to topple the Saudi monarchy. Calling the attack “a terrorist bombing,” Saudi officials finally acknowledged that the kingdom is under siege by the same enemy responsible for 9/11. With 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers hailing from Saudi Arabia, it's high time the Saudis took their heads out of the sand, pretending the kingdom has no problem with terrorism. Saudi's extreme form of Sunni Islam called “Wahhabism” has been long known for sponsoring the most violence against Western targets. Despite the recent bombing in Riyadh, the Saudi's still walk a tightrope fighting terrorism.

      After recent terror hit Riyadh, the U.S. hopes the Saudis will give better support to its war terrorism. Bin Laden has insisted that together with Israel and the U.S., the House of Saud remains Islam's bitter enemy. According to official Al Qaeda propaganda, haboring U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula caused Bin Laden's relentless attacks on the desert kingdom. With terror spiraling out of control in Iraq, Bush has placed the war on terrorism in the context of pursuing democracy. “Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for and standing for, and the advance of freedom leads to peace,” said Bush, justifying the current Iraq campaign, costing growing numbers of American lives. After Sept. 11, the rationale for placing American troops in harms way was national security. Today, national security was replaced with the noble mission of promoting democracy around the globe.

      No amount of rhetoric about “freedom and democracy” obscures the central question facing U.S. policy in Iraq. Is the current military operation to protect national security or spread democracy? Unless there's a solid nexus between the two, evangelizing democracy in the Middle East or elsewhere can't possibly justify the loss of a single American life. No responsible government can ask its citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice unless the mission is clearly tied to national security. Calling Iraq “the central front in the war on terrorism” only after toppling Saddam and occupying the country, can't justify a military adventure without a clearly defined mission and exit strategy. Spewing platitudes about “freedom and democracy” doesn't erase the original rationale for war—namely, finding WMD and disarming a regime regarded as a threat to national security.

      Most Americans believe that “freedom and democracy” are cherished values and high ideals that must be preached around the globe. There's nothing wrong with incorporating “freedom and democracy” into a coherent foreign policy that encourages despots to change their evil ways. Patiently persuading enemies to change is a far cry from toppling regimes that don't meet U.S. standards. Committing the U.S. military to toppling and evangelizing undesirable regimes shows poor use of the armed forces. When Bush ran for office, he promised he would use the military only to “fight and win wars,” not “nation building.” Citing examples of “war crimes” or other atrocities, including mass executions or shallow graves also doesn't undo the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction. Before the government asks one American to sacrifice a life, there better be a compelling reason.

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.