The ghost of LBJ . .
.
By Ehsan Ahrari
American people are edging toward creating a momentum for America's withdrawal from Iraq. But the question President George W Bush must face is whether he must "cut and run", or stay put. Only he can decide how he is to respond to that question, since his decision has nothing to do with any re-election - he is not eligible for a third term. However, historians are already sitting by their laptops, composing texts about his second term. The American people, for their part, have begun to speak. History is in the making. Look at the evidence.
As the Pew Research Center's report on Monday states: "With the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq exceeding 1,700, there is widespread awareness of the rising American death toll. As a consequence, baseline public attitudes toward the war are gradually turning more negative. Support for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq continues to inch up from 36% last October to 42% in February, and 46% currently."
Bush administration officials consistently scoff at all comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Now public opinion polls indicate that American people are clearly thinking along those lines. "About a third of Americans say Iraq will turn out to be another Vietnam, while 47% think the US will accomplish its goals there," states the Pew Center report.
Another item of interest is people's emotional involvement in the war in Iraq. The Pew report notes, "There is some evidence that Americans are becoming less emotionally involved in the news from Iraq. More than four in 10 (44%) say that people they know are becoming less involved emotionally with news of the conflict. That is the highest percentage expressing that view in the past year."
A poll by the Gallup Organization states that a majority of Americans now believe that war in Iraq has not made America secure. Bush and all his national security officials have been making claims to the contrary - that America is safer today because the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, Bush is registering the lowest approval rating of his presidency. "President Bush's approval rating [45%] has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term," the Gallup poll reported. What is the meaning of all of these polls? Will Bush pay much heed? After all, he is not facing another election. That may be so; however, he is still facing the judgment of history. Even though philosophy has never been his forte, Bush ought to be thinking about the long-term implications of America's presence in Iraq - an important Muslim and a very important Arab country. How will America be treated in the Middle East and in the world of Islam at large in the coming years? What happens in Iraq will have implications for America for at least two more generations.
Every president, especially a two-term president, worries about his legacy. How people will remember him; how historians will judge his administration; whether history will be kind or cruel to him. On just these questions, the judgment of history regarding Bush is not likely to be too kind, at least when viewed from the Middle East or the Islamic world. He had a good start when he sent American forces to Afghanistan to topple the medieval Taliban regime. However, things have not gone well for Bush's global "war on terrorism" since then. Only he is to be blamed for that. Yes, he toppled a Middle Eastern dictator, and may even have created a fleeting snapshot of his country as a "liberator" of Iraq. But that snapshot quickly disappeared in the bloody battles in which Iraq remains engulfed to this day.
The most ironic aspect of Bush's choice is that, despite toppling a brutal dictator, he seems to be facing a no-win situation in Iraq. He cannot pull out without permanently destroying all his bravado about transforming the Middle East and eradicating transnational terrorists. Who would have thought that the rag-tag bands of Iraqi insurgents could create such havoc in that country? Now even the US appears receptive to the proposition of having a dialogue with insurgents, by offering only a few perfunctory caveats. Whatever happened to that Bush who, on July 2, 2003, said that American troops under fire in Iraq were not about to pull out, and challenged those tempted to attack US forces by saying, "Bring them on."
By staying put in Iraq, Bush is likely to prolong the bloody saga in that country. There is little chance that the offer of rapprochement with the insurgents will de-escalate mindless killings. The insurgents, on their part, envisage this as a "divide and rule" tactic. It will be interesting, nevertheless, to see whether some serious rounds of negotiations will start in the coming weeks.
A fantastic scenario from America's perspective would be that such a dialogue ensues, then the Iraqi and American forces would gather effective intelligence in return and bring an end to the Iraqi insurgency. Alas, the reality is considerably crueler than that. The insurgency in Iraq is not a unified body. It appears to comprise many multi-headed hydras that have the extraordinary capability of multiplying themselves as parts of them are chopped off. They are formed by numerous, angry Iraqis, Muslims, Arabs and jihadis, all appearing to get even with what they perceive to be terrible wrongs committed by the mighty superpower against them, against Iraq and against Islam.
By staying put in Iraq, Bush might envision himself going through the same horrendous and horrific agonies that president Lyndon B Johnson faced as the war in Vietnam became less and less popular and chants of "hey, hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today" became louder in the streets of America in the late 1960s. LBJ had to decide against seeking a second term and still go down in history as a president who played a crucial role in America's first defeat. One wonders whether Bush is thinking about what the future holds for America in Iraq. Will he be taking agonizing walks in the semi-dark halls of the White House, talking to the ghosts of Abe Lincoln or LBJ? Even if Bush decides to pull troops out of Iraq, the making of a tragedy in that country will not come to an end. Consequently, his presidency, like that of LBJ's, appears to be edging toward some harsh judgment by historians.
atimes.com |
