The Iraq miasma and the Democrats

Democratic Party leaders should have rejoiced when President Bush at his September 11 press conference acted like a spoiled and petulant rich kid. Bush’s obvious irritation about not getting his own way in having the Senate accept his torture bill produced in him an unpleasant and superior posture. The problem Democrats face, however, lies in their absence of clear alternatives to Bush’s “security” and “terrorist” messes. Indeed, Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq have made the Middle East far more unstable and dangerous.

Despite his opponents’ impotence, Bush might also feel a growing sense of annoyance over the failure of his top aides (Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key staffers) to accomplish what in May 2003 he had already called his “mission accomplished.” Playing dress up in a flight jacket after landing on an aircraft carrier deck, Bush emanated success, presenting himself as the smug, self-satisfied leader of the world.

Now, the misguided – by key advisers, of course – Bush confronts daily headlines of carnage in Iraq, less than satisfying approval ratings in public opinion polls and a world reputation as a bully and a screw-up. Part of his current peevishness might have derived from his realization that no viable exit options exist from the pretty pickle – a sour one at that – into which he has gotten the nation and the world.

Throughout his life, Bush’s family used their connections and wealth to rescue W from mischief: not showing up for National Guard duties; drunk driving; business failures. But Daddy, Mommy and all the proverbial King’s men, cannot rescue him from the quicksand into which he has sunk himself – the nation and the world – in Iraq.

As President Kennedy, who shared some of Bush’s “spoiled brat” characteristics, discovered during the October 1962 Missile Crisis there comes a time when the man who presides in the Oval Officer must face the unforeseen consequences of his acts.

Unfortunately, Bush has not matured to Kennedy’s level when the 1962 Missile Crisis arose. JFK understood that his decision would cause or avert nuclear war.

Bush’s daily decisions, however, boil down to how much more U.S. blood gets spilled in Iraq. Bush knows that senior intelligence sources have concluded that military victory without major escalation of troop commitments remains implausible.

Instead of facing the fact that he made a disastrous strategic mistake in ordering the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush continues to divert attention to his favorite word. “Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq,” Bush said at his September 11 press conference, “the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone.”

Note that he spoke of “whatever mistakes” instead of “the mistake I made.” Bush insisted (lied) repeatedly that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism constituted an immediate threat to U.S. security. As of September 2006, a variety of UN and U.S. inspectors have found no such weapons; nor Saddam’s alleged ties to the terrorists. Bush refuses to admit he led the nation into a war of his personal (or was it God’s?) choice – not necessity. He also implicitly denies that Cheney and Rumsfeld and their staff orchestrated the buildup to war by manipulating the media and the intelligence agencies, using information that bolstered the war mongers and disregarding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Instead, he reiterates non-sequitors that confuse rather than illuminate. “They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of American depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.”

The ‘they,’ however, do not represent Saddam Hussein. None of the 19 September 11 hijackers came from Iraq; nor did Saddam encourage or even associate with the fiends who plotted the dirty deeds that brought mass death in New York and Washington. Saddam stood as a foe of Osama bin Laden and the religious fanatics.

By making such supercilious statements, Bush tries to bamboozle the public, divert them from focusing on the issues that arose as the result of his colossal bungle. Terrorists now thrive in Iraq as they did not before the U.S. invasion. He offers no remedies on how to get rid of them and, by default, throws out to others the job of “solving” his Iraq predicament. His mantra of “if you don’t fight ‘em there you’ll have to fight ‘em here” contains neither fact nor logic.

Nevertheless, “realists” in both Parties resist calls for rapid U.S. troop withdrawal. Trapped in imperial axioms that they do not identify when they explain policies, Democrat Senator Joe Biden, for example, has used his imagination to fashion parades of horrors that would be ensured if the U.S. were to withdraw its forces. Pat Buchanan recounted some of the likely consequences: Iraq divided into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia sections, with the spread of an ever bloodier civil war between Sunnis and Shias. Kurds would fight both and Turkey as well. The conflict would spread through the Middle East and all those who collaborated with the U.S. occupation would suffer horrific consequences. (SF Chronicle, September 11).

In addition, imperial pessimists, like Think Tank members of Chatham House in England, predict Iran will gain ever more prestige. “There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East,” they wrote. “The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments -- the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 -- but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures.” (Guardian, August 23)

U.S. troops can hypothetically remain in Iraq for two or more years, losing a dozen or more dead and wounded each week. The number of Iraqi dead will continue to grow. U.S. troops may prevail in one area and lose ground in another. Bush’s promised reconstruction of Iraq, all but forgotten along with the ideas of privatizing Iraqi oil and other major state industries, will remain on permanent hold. Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury suffers depletion.

Invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein symbolized the Bush administration’s larger strategy for projecting U.S. power and influence in the post-Cold War world. But the neo con advisers assured him victory would emerge with a minimum number of troops. Not so in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What can Bush do? Put more troops into Iraq? This means either deploying them from other areas or re-instituting a draft, both unappetizing choices. Staying the course means adhering to a failed strategy. Remove U.S. troops, “declare victory and come home,” Vermont Republican Senator George Aiken told Presidents Johnson and Nixon in the late 1960s.

The Democrats might argue that U.S. security would increase if we withdrew from Iraq and simultaneously negotiated with Iran, a route that Bush has not tried; nor, apparently, will he consider such a course. The Democrats could declare “War has failed, so talk might succeed.” Indeed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might even help stabilize his volatile neighbor in return for improved relations with Washington.

The Democrats could also declare loudly and clearly that the President has disgraced the nation repeatedly. The public knows he read “My Pet Goat” to Florida second graders for seven minutes after he knew the plane had hit the World Trade tower. Everyone heard him boast of victory in Iraq long before any mature – or modest – person would have considered making such a statement. Drowning and homeless people might have wondered what happened to the U.S. government. Its leader remained on vacation at his ranch while Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans and other Gulf cities. The public has seen him bluster and strut, but when circumstances demand action, Bush repeatedly shows himself as a man who lacks courage. As President, courage also means admitting mistakes and taking steps to change policy rather than insisting that failure is, if not success, the only viable course. The Democrats can put the ball in their court by saying: “Out of Iraq and Into Negotiations” before it’s too late.