Bushies Still Can't Get Their Act Together on Iraq

by Steve

Here’s another example of the Bush Administration not speaking with one voice on Iraq. Just days after Rummy had initially undercut President Bush in claiming that partial Iraqi elections would suffice in January, only to eat his words the next day and then see Colin Powell’s Number Two Richard Armitage say that all areas of the country needed to participate in any elections, today Powell reiterated that elections in all parts of the country would be essential. Powell went on to state the obvious that the insurgency has gained strength and that opposition to the United States in the Islamic world has only gotten worse due to the Iraq war. But then Powell reverted to Fantasy Island when he said the biggest step towards a greater acceptance of America’s actions over the last two years will be free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as if either of these are imminent. Powell went on to say that the recent CIA National Intelligence Estimate that painted a bleak picture of Iraq’s future was credible.

No sooner had Powell said these things this morning than the Pentagon disagreed once again. General John Abizaid, fresh from having Abu Ghraib happen under his nose, said that partial elections would be good enough, and that the NIE was overly pessimistic and not reflective of how well things were really going in Iraq.

Is it too much to ask for the Bush Administration to speak consistently on Iraq? Or is that even possible? Isn’t it the job of your National Security Advisor to make sure that the administration’s message is consistent and that the foreign and security policies of the administration are clearly articulated and coherent? After all of the beating that Kerry has taken from Bush for flip-flopping and being inconsistent on Iraq, it is Bush and his team that can’t seem to get their message straight.

Along those lines, can anyone, even the president, tell us what our goals were in toppling Saddam and how they relate to our mission now? Remember that it was Bush himself that criticized the Clinton Administration for nation building and mission creep during the 2000 race, yet as these divergent comments from Bush and his officials demonstrate, it is Bush who is engaged in mission creep now.

Initially as Bush sold it to Congress and the UN, this war was about WMDs and terrorism. Then as the vast WMD stockpiles never materialized and the alleged links to Al Qaeda were found to be false, the rationale shifted to one of ridding the Iraqi people of a tyrant and bringing democracy to them, even as the Administration never planned for the occupation in the first place. Yet the destabilization and lack of security and infrastructure reconstruction brought about by our war and botched occupation have now made the country a home for terrorists.

What exactly are we in Iraq for now? Are we in Iraq to rid the country of insurgents so that full elections can be held? If so, then won’t we need thousands more troops to do this, and when will those troops be called up? If this is our goal, then why does the Pentagon of all places seem to be content with partial elections, which work against spreading democracy and work towards fracturing the country even more? Or is the real goal here simply to get to the elections and then have our troops retreat to defensible positions along the borders and establish a permanent presence in the region, leaving the Iraqis and their country to sort it out themselves no matter how damaging that would be for them, their neighbors, and us. If so, this would be one more idiotic approach by an administration that has already made several gross miscalculations. I'm sure Mr. Dead or Alive would like for us to trade bases in Saudi Arabia for bases in a fractured Iraq, but I'm not sure how Mr. and Mrs. America would feel about being misled once again on the true endgame here.