Broken Record

Perhaps, in this age, the metaphor should be "skipping CD." At any rate, President Bush's speech this morning was an abysmal disappointment, offering little more than the same vacuous flag waving and lack of a clear vision for a definable and attainable end state in Iraq. In truth, this speech could have been delivered last month, last year, or shortly after the invasion of Iraq. At this point, however, "trust me, we're doing important things" is wearing a bit thin.

The Bush Administration still insists on blurring the lines between Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq - certainly distinct groups. In a remarkable fallacy of logic, Bush offered the vision of an Iraq headed by Osama bin Laden or his lieutenants. Ironically, as slim as the chance of an Iraqi terrorist state is now, it is still greater than the chance of such a state under Saddam Hussein, who despised Islamic fundamentalism, and actively suppressed it.

It is well worth remembering the constant parade of reasons offered for the war in Iraq. First, we were told that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Next, the presence of weapons of mass destruction was advanced as the principal reason for invading (complete with Secretary of State Colin Powell "making the case" at the UN - a case we now know was based on poor intelligence). Additional reasons were offered, as well. Remember the suggestion that an invasion of Iraq would provide a free-flowing supply of relatively inexpensive oil? Have you filled up your SUV at the gas station lately?

So, once again, Mr. Bush is telling us that this is a war worth fighting and winning - that it is crucial for the safety and security of the United States. Let us hope so. We have sacrificed 1943 US military lives on that premise, with nearly 15,000 wounded. Meanwhile, we have pitifully under supported military efforts in Afghanistan, resulting in a stalemate, with casualties among US troops there recently spiking, and with regional warlords carving up their spheres of influence through a flawed election process (and most probably a good measure of intimidation). And, of course, the opium trade continues to line the pockets of these same petty dictators, while in part supporting the very Taliban US forces initially came to oust.

In one respect, Mr. Bush is right. We cannot 'cut and run' in Iraq. Although peace activists would relish this, the damage to our already battered credibility would be significant. And this is the most sickening aspect of the Bush legacy. We have little choice but to keep enough troops piled on the lid of Pandora's box, attempting to avert civil war. Odds of long-term success are not good, but perhaps that is a secondary consideration. The American public is not likely to support an open-ended occupation of Iraq, or "military assistance" to the tune of 140,000 troops for the next decade. The present administration seems to be betting that they can at least talk the American people into supporting it through November 2008.

-PMÓS