America at War
Why Iraq is a Monumental Failure
By JAMES ROSEN
McClathcy Newspapers
May 3, 2004, 07:16
capitolhillblue.com
In the face of stubborn violence that is accelerating U.S. casualties and sparking criticism at home, President Bush on Friday cited progress in Iraq and denied that he celebrated victory there too early a year ago with a triumphant landing on an aircraft carrier.
Bush also noted that when he stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln off San Diego a year ago Saturday, six weeks after the United States invaded Iraq, he warned of "difficult work ahead" in the weeks and months to come.
"A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier saying we had achieved an important objective, accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush told reporters outside the White House, visiting Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at his side.
"As a result there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq," Bush said.
Asked whether things are getting better or worse in Iraq, Bush acknowledged that "we've faced tough times" but said, "We're making progress, you bet."
Bush spoke on the last day of April, which had already become the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq before the deaths Friday of two Marines, in a car-bombing in Fallujah, raised the toll for April to 128.
When Bush landed on the USS Lincoln on May 1, 2003, 117 U.S. troops had died in Iraq. A widening insurgency in recent weeks has caused a spike in deaths, bringing the total number of American fatalities to 738.
Bush and his aides dismiss much of the criticism over Iraq as politically motivated attacks during a presidential election year.
Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, cited "all the mistakes that have been made" in Iraq during a speech Friday in Missouri. He called for NATO to assume a major role there and urged the U.N. Security Council to organize an interim government.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, accused Bush of "wishful thinking" a year ago.
"America's mission in Iraq -- the removal of Hussein's brutal regime, and the stabilization and democratization of Iraq -- is far from accomplished," Hoyer said. "It is also clear that the president did not adequately prepare our nation, in terms of the human cost and the cost to American taxpayers, (for) the more difficult part of this mission -- security and reconstructing Iraq."
With the death toll mounting in Iraq, criticism has spread beyond Democrats. A broad range of national security experts, including several who have close ties to the government, say there is mounting concern over Iraq within the military, Congress and the State Department.
"Why did we get it so wrong?" asked retired Gen. Dennis Reimer, former Army chief of staff. "Why are the Iraqis throwing grenades at us instead of flowers? Why didn't we plan for this kind of worst-case scenario? We underestimated the problems we would face in transitioning to peace because we didn't have good enough plans for that to happen."
Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University, is an adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. After spending the first three months of the year traveling around Iraq, talking with local Iraqi officials about democracy and self-government, he has not returned because he doesn't feel it is safe to travel.
"We did bungle it in many ways," Diamond said. "We didn't put in nearly enough troops. We should have put in another 100,000 troops. We need more equipment, more armor. We should have found a way to encourage legitimate Iraqi political participation much more quickly. I think the planning for the political aspects of the transition was woefully inadequate."
Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who helped craft policy for the war and its aftermath during most of 2002, said much of the planning foundered on a fundamental misconception that Iraqis would regard Americans as liberators.
"It was based on a sense that when we removed Saddam Hussein from power, the Iraqi people would be grateful and there wouldn't be a huge hangover from 30 years of authoritarian rule," Alterman said.
Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, gave a stark and dire assessment of the current situation.
"We have already failed," Odom told NBC's "Today" show Thursday. "Staying in longer makes us fail worse. ... And now we are in the situation where we have to limit the damage."
Other experts don't go as far as Odom, saying an abrupt U.S. exit from Iraq would be disastrous and urging the Bush administration to reverse its most grievous errors. While refusing to admit past mistakes overtly, Bush gets credit for making a start in that direction.
Recent steps that draw praise include allowing some former Iraqi generals back into uniform to train the country's faltering new armed forces, loosening the ban on former Baath members teaching or holding government posts, and asking U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to help form the interim government.
Retired Col. Ken Allard, a military analyst who led peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, said Bush has not been honest with Americans about the true costs of his ambitious plans in Iraq and beyond in the Middle East, either in dollars or in possible American lives.
"What we're facing in Iraq is a much longer-term struggle than we may be ready for and which we simply might not have the resources for," Allard said."
Thomas Donnelly, an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said Bush has undertaken an admirable but extremely difficult initiative of trying to spread democracy in the Middle East, starting with Iraq.
"Iraq is part of a larger regional picture," Donnelly said. "The president has committed himself to trying to reorder the political system in the Middle East. I think that's a wise thing to do, but it could be the work of a century."
© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue |
