President Bush’s crusade to make Iraq safe for democracy has only succeeded in making it safe for al Qaeda. Indeed, every major prediction about Iraq advanced by the administration has been shown to be false. In his October 7, 2002 speech on the “Iraqi Threat,” Bush stated five times that Saddam Hussein was not only developing weapons of mass destruction but that he already possessed such weapons. For example, Bush began with the declaration that the Iraqi regime “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.” This belief constituted the primary justification for going to war with Iraq, yet these weapons have not been found. Bush also asserted that Saddam Hussein had cooperated with al Qaeda, yet as is painfully obvious, if anything, the war with Iraq has only intensified al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq. Finally, the neoconservatives boasted that the war would be a short one, yet as we all know it is still continuing.
Originally, the primary mission was to locate, identify, and disable the weapons of mass destruction. As the summer progressed, this objective eventually faded from the public spotlight. Now the administration faces a “classical guerilla-type” conflict in a war that may not have been justified. Indeed, the irrelevancy of the weapons search is a testament to the reversal of fortunes in Iraq. When terrorism and chaos are the order of the day, it is meaningless to ask why we are there. The more pressing question is—what should we be doing there now?
In his speech, Bush interpreted the escalation of violence as a positive factor, viewing the war with Iraq as a constituent of the broader war on terror: “We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.” What this means is that we have made it easier tot terrorists to attack us. What we have created in Iraq is a terrorists’ paradise—137, 000 U.S. soldiers in an unfamiliar and artificial country divided between three ethnic groups. Now attacking Americans merely requires a border-crossing to the country next door. Perhaps Bush believes that it is better that soldiers are dying instead of American civilians, but can this thinking be acceptable to a president who has called for “moral clarity” in our foreign policy?
Clearly, stabilizing Iraq and leaving it with an effective government is now our priority. Yet, the Bush administration is not satisfied with this alone. In his September 8 speech to the nation, Bush—under the influence of neoconservatism-—still clung to the dream of remaking Iraq in our image, calling for the establishment of “democracy and tolerance” in Iraq. This reflects a grotesque incomprehension of the political and cultural realities of Iraq. Overall, Iraq is captive to a culture that does not know democracy and does not recognize the legitimacy of states separated from religion. It is embedded in a civilization
of failed states and explosive religious animosities. In the West, the emergence of democracy represented centuries of political and cultural evolution—to attempt the same in Iraq in the space of a generation is the height of arrogance. To attempt such a project when Iraq is drowning in disorder is irresponsible. It is an impossible mission doomed to repeat the failures of Vietnam.
