9-24-05, 10:22 am

With rising pressure from many sectors in the U.S. for troop withdrawal from Iraq, Bush's rhetoric of stubbornness is raising comparisons in some quarters to President Lyndon Johnson's own regarding the war against Vietnam. 'We shall stay they course,' they have both said.

Johnson’s presidency ultimately failed as a result. Bush is heading south.

But as the peace movement prepares to occupy Washington, DC this weekend, a new report released by the non-partisan research group Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) shows that the Bush administration has exaggerated the presence of non-Iraqi fighters in Iraq. According to CSIS’ report, as few as 4 to 10 percent of insurgents in Iraq are non-Iraqis.

In fact, a main rationale offered by the administration for continuing the occupation of Iraq is that foreign fighters threaten to spark civil war and to export terrorism to neighboring countries.

The foreign fighters exaggeration was invented to counter criticisms of the war that suggested Iraqis did not in fact support the Bush administration’s invasion of their country. The Bush administration had to convince the public that indeed the US was not fighting Iraqis but a gang of foreign fighters and terrorists. While the estimates of the number of foreign fighters have been inflated to heighten the sense of danger and unrest in Iraq and to force onto the US public the conundrum of leaving a mess created by the Bush war, it is increasingly clear that the occupation of Iraq itself is the catalyst for the danger of international terrorism.

The failure of the Bush administration to build adequate international support for reconstruction – between $50 and $60 billion short according to IMF estimates of Iraq's needs – as well as to aid directly in the rapid and widespread reconstruction of Iraq's economy and infrastructure have added to growing dissatisfaction aimed at the US occupiers. While this sentiment rarely turns into 'terrorist' activity, it has been an influence.

(Note: I fully realize the politically loaded use of the term terrorism but accept it to describe a section of the insurgency in Iraq whose goal is destabilization and violence aimed at non-combatants for narrow political interests other than patriotic liberation in Iraq or elsewhere. I don't equate it with insurgency or 'resistance.')

Despite evidence that the administration has fostered exaggerations of the number of foreign fighters, they are attracted to Iraq. Offering no evidence of Iraq’s pre-war connection to terrorist networks (other than those that exist for friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel) prior to the war, the current situation by any account is a hotbed of violence. Rather than undermining (non-existent) terrorist networks in Iraq and preventing their access to WMD and other dangerous weapons, an original aim of the war, the Bush war has turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorist organizations.

Bush and his war supporters use the fact of growing violence as their basic reason for continuing the occupation. Sure, they say, WMD and Iraq’s imminent threat to us were phony reasons. Terrorism was the real reason all along. Some have even implied that the public had to be tricked into the fight, because it didn’t see the real danger that Bush and the neo-cons understood.
What they can’t account for, however, is the growth of the terrorist threat in Iraq since Bush declared victory in May of 2003. This theory that fighting in and occupying Iraq is the front line of the 'war on terror' doesn't hold up even under the lightest scrutiny. About 1,700 U.S. soldiers have died since the declaration of victory, with about 10,000 wounded. Iraqis are being killed by the dozens each day, an increase, by far, over the worst excesses of Saddam’s atrocities.

Clearly this isn't victory.

More importantly, the situation signals failure to accomplish the goal at the heart of the rationale for staying. If the situation created by Bush's war on Iraq is the root cause of turning that country into the 'frontline' of the so-called war on terror, then it stands to reason, due to the growth of the numbers of terrorists, the number of terrorist acts, and the strengthening of terrorist networks streaming out of Iraq as a result of Bush's war, that the war has failed.

In fact, the war has been fought to a standstill on the part of the US military, while terrorist fighters have become more dynamic. The result has been that we have seen a shift in much of Bush's rhetoric about the war. Aside from proclamations to 'stay the course,' the Bush administration has begun to emphasize the 'Iraqification' of the war, i.e. handing over military and security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces in order to prepare for a hand-over of real power and an ultimate withdrawal (at least partially).

An average observer might note the contradiction. A powerful army (the US) which has failed to win its stated main objective – defeating international terrorism – is handing responsibility of leading that fight over to an ill-equipped and inexperienced army. Logically, one would have to expect that army would fail too.

OK, Bush supporters, might say, so we’ve had some setbacks, but now there is no alternative, we have to stay and really fight it out. Throw more bodies and bombs at them.

And so the cycle continues.

What we have to come to understand is that the war and continuing occupation is the cause of the growth and spread of terrorism. Aside from delivering a bloodbath on the Iraqi people, tearing that country apart, and provoking a looming civil war, the main objective of battling terrorism turned into its opposite: it fueled international terrorism.

Withdrawal will not embolden the terrorists, as Bush says, any more than they already are. Terrorists are emboldened by Bush’s stubbornness and obsession with preserving his image as a war president. They are emboldened by an administration that fought so desperately to get us into this war with lies and now refuses to acknowledge the truth of its failures. They are emboldened by an administration willing to throw huge amounts of the national treasure at an inevitably failing effort.

Fighting terrorism is important. It is indeed one of the most important concerns of our era. But Bush’s methods have failed, let’s accept that and move on.

What is the alternative? First, troop withdrawal from Iraq (and many other countries and regions) and a rapid and un-self-interested reconstruction effort there would immediately dowse flames of hatred and violence.

Second, respect the sovereignty of all countries. Withdraw support for military, economic, and political intervention in other countries. Such a move would improve bilateral relations with other countries quickly and reduce the appeal within some countries for violent responses. Friendly and respectful relations could turn into unity and cooperation.

Third, the US government has to reexamine its relationship to the international community and try to understand why the world has failed to stick with the Bush administration’s version of the 'war on terror.' Bribes and coercion out of Washington to forge a phony 'coalition of the willing' was a formula for failure. Unilateralism and attacks on international institutions that seemed to hinder the narrow goals of the Bush administration also inevitably led to disaster.

Fourth, lies, manipulation, and a cynical campaign to coerce Congress, the US people, and the world to support the war surely played a role in undermining the administration’s credibility. Honest dealings could rebuild trust and friendship.

Repairing relations with the world and moving forward by falling into line with generally accepted views on international law – nixing wars of aggression, rooting out torture in the US military, closing extra-legal prisons camps in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, abiding by international agreements – even when doing so prevents the US government from immediately achieving certain narrow and self-interested goals, would be a major step to regaining trust, respect, and global unity.

Finally, instead of imposing the US administration’s narrow view of the war on terror on the rest of the world, as was the tone and message of Bush’s recent UN speech, the US is going to have to listen, discuss, and take advice. It is going to have to do better to worry less about one president’s image and more about building global solidarity and unity. It is going to have to learn to back down, in order for all countries to step forward.

Bush's war has failed to make us safe. It is time for a new course.

--Joel Wendland can be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.