As We See It: Bush must level with public
Iraq: Specter of June 30 turnover along with worsening military situation could imperil president’s re-election chances.
Iraq is not Vietnam.
That said, the situation in the Middle East does have some disquieting similarities to that conflict of the 1960s and early ’70s, and one of the major ones is the political effects upon a sitting president.
George W. Bush’s tenure, by his own pronouncements and actions, will be judged on two things: the success and progress of the war on terror and what happens in Iraq.
On the former, the verdict is still out. This country so far has been spared another attack on the scale of Sept. 11, but terrorism seems to be resurgent.
Iraq poses a similar, but even more politically vexing problem for a president whose re-election is far from certain.
The escalating violence, which now involves Shiite Muslims as well as Sunnis, along with a climbing death toll seems to put the lie to administration claims that it is making progress pacifying the country.
More than that, the violence and uprisings led by a dissident cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, also send a chilling message to the president’s team about June 30. That’s the day the United States is supposed to turn over power to an interim Iraqi government.
Does anyone believe that we need fewer, rather than more, forces in Iraq? Or that the country will be ready for whatever happens beginning July 1?
The truth is that we cannot cut and run in Iraq, that we are there for a long time, and that the situation will remain dangerous and deadly for the foreseeable future.
Does the president, whose poll ratings are sinking, have the political strength to level with Americans about this?
Iraq, as we said, is no Vietnam. The latter was more of a civil war, and the Communists had the support of a majority of the people, dooming the United States’ attempts to prop up a more friendly government.
In Iraq, a brutal and hated dictator was toppled, in a worthwhile effort to bring at least one nation in the volatile Islamic world into the modern era of democracy.
As part of a war on terror, WMD or not, this made sense. The administration’s major failure, however, was to concentrate so fully on removing Saddam and not plan adequately for what would follow.
Right now, U.S.-led forces are trying to arrest al-Sadr, and to kill or bring to justice the insurgents who killed American citizens in the Sunni city of Fallujah. The administration needs to send a message that we are not going to back down and that murder and betrayal will not be tolerated.
But the president needs to level with the American people, whose wavering confidence in his ability to lead them out of this mess is reviving talk of the Vietnam era’s "credibility gap."
Democratic challenger John Kerry will certainly remind voters that they have not been told how long we will have to be in Iraq, how much it will cost, how many troops are really necessary, and what we’re going to do if chaos breaks out between July 1 and January, when free elections are supposed to be held.
Deception and denial will only cost Bush support.
Yes, it is unpalatable in an election year to go to the public and say the obvious: We’re in Iraq for the long haul, and we’ll need more people and money.
But a failure to level with the people during the Vietnam War forced President Lyndon B. Johnson to step down in 1968, when it became apparent that the government’s claims and reality were at distinct odds.
Bush would be better off making tough decisions, telling people that he is going to stay the course even if it will cost him his re-election.
Print
santacruzsentinel.com |
