With popular support for the war in Iraq dwindling, the casualty count rising daily (four military personnel were reported killed on November 30), and recent criticism of the White House's strategy by decorated Marine Vietnam veteran and Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, President Bush and his advisors are attempting to retake the offensive in the PR war.
On Wednesday, November 30, the White House released a document entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which was accompanied by a Bush speech at the United States Naval Academy.
Did he outline a new strategy? Has victory been defined? What does it say about the prospect of getting the bulk of American forces out of Iraq? Are there any other tid-bits that surfaced that help us understand the administration's thinking?
Total victory: The only acceptable outcome for Bush
Bush has been steadfast in saying the US will not give up on its efforts in Iraq. In this speech, he once again declared that there is no other outcome he will accept other than victory -- and victory on his terms.
"I will settle for nothing less than complete victory. In World War II, victory came when the Empire of Japan surrendered on the deck of the USS Missouri. In Iraq, there will not be a signing ceremony on the deck of a battleship. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation.""There is only one way to honor the sacrifice of Corporal Starr and his fallen comrades -- and that is to take up their mantle, carry on their fight, and complete their mission."
With only "complete victory" a possibility, the question becomes, if we are to achieve it, we have to defeat some group. And who is the enemy?
"The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists."
The three-headed nature of the enemy complicates the road to victory, as each group has its own motivations and will require a different approach to overcome. Some may be defeated by giving up arms and joining the political process (rejectionists and perhaps some Saddamists), while others will undoubtedly have to be killed in battle or taken into custody (some Saddamists and most terrorists).
Bush provides the Administration's insight into each group, its motivations, and its future.
- Rejectionists:
"The rejectionists are by far the largest group."
"These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group."
"Many Sunnis boycotted the January elections -- yet as democracy takes hold in Iraq, they are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests."
"We believe that, over time, most rejectionists will be persuaded to support a democratic Iraq led by a federal government that is a strong enough government to protect minority rights. - Saddamists:
"The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined."
"It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power."
"These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community."
"They lack popular support and therefore cannot stop Iraq's democratic progress. And over time, they can be marginalized and defeated by the Iraqi people and the security forces of a free Iraq." - Terrorists:
"The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda."
"Many are foreigners who are coming to fight freedom's progress in Iraq. This group includes terrorists from Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Iran, and Egypt, and Sudan, and Yemen, and Libya, and other countries."
"They're led by a brutal terrorist named Zarqawi -- al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq -- who has pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden."
"Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain."
"They will fail. America's will is strong. And they will fail because the will to power is no match for the universal desire to live in liberty."
Bush's three elements of victory: Political, security, and economic
Bush went on to talk about how the US would secure victory. In fighting a three-headed enemy, he spoke about a three-pronged effort that he believes will lead to victory.
"To achieve victory over such enemies, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq.""Our strategy in Iraq has three elements.""On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies, so we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis. ""On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.""And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy, and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq. In doing all this we have involved the United Nations, other international organizations, our coalition partners, and supportive regional states in helping Iraqis build their future."
But no timeline, and an open door for more troops
For those hoping for a troop reduction or a timeline on troop withdrawals, the President did not offer anything positive. Instead, he restated his view that the job will be done no matter the time or number of troops required.
"We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them."
The purpose of victory?
Interestingly, the President stated:
"Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory."
So just what is our purpose? Originally, we were told we invaded Iraq to eliminate the threat of a rogue and dangerous regime that we believed had or would soon acquire weapons of mass destruction that would be used against the United States. However, there are many anti-Bush critics who claimed the invasion of Iraq was simply part of a broader goal of the neo-conservative movement to secure and democratize the Middle East and increase the security of Israel. Bush's own words seem to echo this aspiration.
"In the short run, we're going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East.""Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists. Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation -- and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans. We will meet the challenge of our time. We will answer history's call with confidence -- because we know that freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child on this earth."
So, what about that victory?
From the speech, we learned from Bush his views on why, who, and how we were fighting in Iraq. But the bulk of the speech was spent on pointing out the success of training the new Iraqi army and police force. While it is promising to hear that the Administration and military have learned lessons and are changing some of their tactics -- and according to Bush, seeing more success -- the reality is that this is simply a continuation of the existing policy: A policy of training Iraqis so they can do what are soldiers, private security personnel, and support staff do now. It may be improved, but it's the same old policy, and the cost in American soldiers continues to rise because most won't come home until victory has been declared. As Bush said:
"And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down -- and when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation."
Will even Bush-backers support the war in 1, 3 , or 5 more years? According to Bush, the strategy will not change until victory is acheived or his term ends.
"Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends.""To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief."
A President with a bad track record for predicting the future
On May 1, 2003, Bush said on the deck of the carrier, with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign in the background:
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.""The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."
Over two and one half years later, that statement doesn't seem to ring true as Bush said:
"Before our mission in Iraq is accomplished, there will be tough days ahead."
For the future Marine officers in the audience who may soon be on foot in Iraq, it could not have been comforting. If the tide had turned in May of 2003, why are so many soldiers being killed by IEDs in Iraq in 2005? If it hadn't turned, why was the Administration so wrong?
Even those who don't like Bush cannot hope that the war goes badly, because that means more of our soldiers will be wounded and killed. But with "complete victory" a mirage forever years away, we all need to ask: Is Iraqi democracy worth the death of over two thousand Americans?
Sure, we can't go back in time. We can't cut and run. We created the current mess, so now we need to fix it -- or at least stabilize it. But we can and should hold our leaders accountable.
The Iraq War wouldn't be the first time American soldiers suffered as a result of a misguided political agenda. It would be nice to think that it would be the last time.