by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 30, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

mbushed by Iraqi insurgents in Latifiyah, Iraq, seven Spanish intelligence agents fell to Kalashnikovs and rocket propelled grenades, ending the bloodiest month since President George W. Bush declared an end to formal combat operations on May 1. With over 130,000 troops—about 30% of the entire armed forces—deployed in Iraq, the U.S. military and coalition face unending guerrilla warfare designed to evict occupying forces. Bringing November's death toll to 107, mounting casualties raise more doubts about the current U.S. mission in Iraq. Since smart bombs hit Saddam's alleged hideout March 20, the White House has lost its focus, originally designed to neutralize a growing threat to U.S. national security. Once Saddam was toppled, his military disbanded and no weapons of mass destruction found, it was time to rethink the mission and plan a responsible exit strategy.

      Since March 20, the rationale for the war has shifted from finding weapons of mass destruction to, most recently, keeping terrorists off American soil. Now faced with a bloody guerrilla war, the U.S. finds itself tilting at windmills. Without fighting a conventional military, the U.S. military faces a stealth enemy, ambushing troops at will. Determined insurgents in Vietnam outlasted a formidable U.S. onslaught that dropped more bombs than in all of World War I and II, yet still endured as stinging defeat. On Feb. 6, Secretary of State Colin A. Powell gave a powerful presentation to the U.N. Security Council, showing convincing evidence—including satellite photos—that Iraq's illicit weapons presented a growing threat to U.S. national security. Powell's speech was at odds with Hans Blix and his team of U.N. weapons inspectors finding no evidence of WMD or threat to national security.

      Iraqi insurgents—or foreign terrorists—are now targeting all troops and civilian personnel associated with U.S. occupation. “These were holy warriors making jihad [holy way] against the invaders,” said Abdul Qader Faisal, a 26-year old student, celebrating over the corpses of Spanish agents. Contrary to official reports, Iraqis don't want the U.S. selecting its form of government. “We don't want the Americans here. We don't want the Spanish here. The Americans have done nothing for us,” said Faisal, mirroring the sentiments of insurgents fighting U.S. occupation. Whether Faisal's words reflect Iraq's majority is anyone's guess. One thing's for sure: When the U.S. military arrived in Iraq, they weren't greeted with cheering crowds waving American flags. Since the Iraqi army threw in the towel, the U.S. has faced a bloody guerrilla war with no end in sight.

      Arriving Iraq for a surprise Thanksgiving visit, President Bush thanked the troops for “defending the American people from danger,” indirectly linking Iraq again to Bin Laden's attack on Sept. 11. Despite repudiating such a link, Bush characterized Iraq as the “central front in the war on terror.” Mounting casualties and lowered morale prompted Bush to reeducate the troops about the mission in the mess hall of Baghdad International Airport. “Each on of you has answered a great call participating in a historic moment in the world history,” said Bush, implying that the U.S. military was defending the country against a life-and-death struggle against terrorists. “We thank you for your service, we're proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you,” telling the troops that he unequivocally supports the current mission. Yet supporting the troops involves much more than giving the Pentagon a blank check.

      Iraqi insurgents, or even foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, don't represent a threat to U.S. national security. Sept. 11 involved a carefully planned attack by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror organization. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, with no ties to Baghdad. With Afghanistan in shambles, carved up to disparate warlords, including those tied the world's biggest heroin trade, and Bin Laden still on the loose, the threat from Al Qaeda remains formidable. Speculation about Bin Laden's ties to Baghdad serves no other purpose than to justify the current quagmire. “You are defeating the terrorist here in Iraq so we don't have to face them in our own country,” said Bush, drawing the specious connection between Iraq and Bin Laden. “At this point, we still have not conclusively established an Al Qaeda operative here in this country,” said U.S. military commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

      Telling the troops they're fighting terrorists who might wind up on U.S. soil gives the latest rationale for the war in Iraq. Most Americans don't support losing American lives for the purpose of ending the world's authoritarian regimes. With weapons of mass destruction no longer a threat, giving the U.S. military support involves rethinking the current mission. No American soldier should lose his or her life to perpetuate myths about national security or push democracy around the globe. There's no credible evidence that the current insurgency in Iraq threatens U.S. national security. Iraqi insurgents, or even foreign terrorists, currently fighting U.S. occupation aren't the ones plotting the next Sept. 11. Before the U.S. loses more troops and goes too far astray, it's time to find a responsible exit strategy. There's simply no reason today for losing more American lives.

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.