by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 6, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

ashing out at the press, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld blamed the media for failing to report positive developments in Iraq, including the upcoming Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. Since President George W. Bush delivered his “victory strategy” speech Nov. 30 hoping to stem his slide in the polls, the White House launched a PR offensive to help turn public opinion. Despite the optimism, the insurgency claimed 85 U.S. lives in November and December looks no better. With Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean declaring that, “the U.S. won't win in Iraq,” the administration faces nagging doubts. “To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success as the absence of terrorist attacks,” said Rumsfeld, hoping to divert attention away from the inescapable reality that American forces are taking a beating to secure Iraq's political future.

      Supporting the troops means more than fantasizing about “victory” or “defeating the terrorists.” It involves facing realistically the ongoing costs to the troops and U.S. treasury. “It's appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed—and may God bless them and their families—but what they died for, or, more importantly, what they lived for,” said Rumsfeld, making an emotional plea to stay the course. It's not enough for Rumsfeld to express gratitude to American soldiers and families for sacrificing their lives. Rumsfeld should focus on retooling his Iraq policy to protect American troops, including finding an acceptable exist strategy. Bush's plan to ramp-up Iraqi forces hasn't worked because a substantial number of Iraqi forces have loyalty to terrorists fighting U.S. occupation. That's what prompted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to call for “immediate” withdrawal.

      It's no accident that a recent Arab summit in Cairo Nov. 22, including representatives of Iraq's new government, announced it wanted to set a timetable for withdrawing all foreign forces from Iraq. While condemning “terrorism,” the joint communiqué “recognized the right of resistance,” namely, supporting the current insurgency seeking to end U.S. occupation. That's a devastating slap in the face to U.S. forces currently sacrificing American lives to help breathe life into Iraq's new democracy. When Vice President Dick Cheney declared at the Air Force Academy June 2 that “the insurgency was in its last throes,” optimists hoped for light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, they've seen stepped up attacks on U.S. forces, with suicide bombings and Improvised Explosive Devices growing more deadly. It's not pessimism to see clearly what's really happening.

      Bush's first duty involves protecting the American public, including the armed services. Rumsfeld's duty as defense secretary is to level with the president about the realistic possibilities of “victory.” Supporting the troops involves getting them out of an untenable situation where U.S. military commanders can't protect their forces on the ground. Too many of Iraq's military and security forces have ties to insurgents seeking to end U.S. occupation. Bush and Cheney must level with the American public that Iraq's insurgents, or those foreign terrorists fighting U.S. occupation, do not threaten U.S. national security or pose a real risk of launching terrorist attacks on American soil. It doesn't help the U.S. mission that Russia supplies hostile governments, like Syria and Iran, and Iraq's insurgents and foreign terrorists, the necessary arms and military explosives to kill American troops.

      Democrat and GOP politicians are guilty of playing politics in advance of next year's elections. No Democratic elected officials, other than fringe antiwar activists, including vocal liberals like Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) or even House Minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have categorically denounced the war and called for immediate withdrawal. Even DNC chief Howard Dean calls for a measured, two-year-long pullout. Only Murtha put his cards on the table calling for an “immediate withdrawal,” enduring backlash inside and outside his party. With the exception of Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who's been largely silenced by his own party, GOP politicians have supported the White House, causing untold misery to U.S. troops. Nobody wants to “lose” in Iraq but elected officials must show less partisanship and courage to save American lives.

      Rumsfeld's PR offensive reflects the most blinding and self-serving interests of the White House to avoid the disgrace and humiliation of a failed policy. It doesn't dishonor fallen U.S. troops to rethink a policy that causes too many casualties and produces no few benefits, especially to U.S. national security. Assigning Ret. Army Gen. Montgomery Meigs to deal with IEDs won't stop Russia from supplying arms to hostile foreign governments and terrorists determined to see the U.S. out of Iraq. Blessing the families of fallen troops also won't fix a broken policy that has allowed the insurgency to get the upper-hand. Since there's virtually no public support for Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) recent proposal to dramatically increase U.S. forces, the White House must stop selling the war and find a face-saving way out. Blaming the press for undermining the war sadly misses the mark.

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.

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