Bush, Inc: Time To Come Clean On iraq

Americans deserve candor, not more hopeful 'updates'
USA Today
Tue Jun 21, 7:09 AM ET
Another day, another round of bombings, electricity cuts, death and destruction in Iraq. Monday's grim tally included a suicide attack in northern Iraq that killed at least 15 traffic policemen and wounded 100. Insurgents' sabotage of water pipes left 2 million sweltering Baghdadis without water.

Nothing, in other words, out of the ordinary. Just more evidence that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, battling a fierce insurgency with the outcome uncertain. More than two years after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, no end is in view for the 140,000 U.S. troops. More than 1,700 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives.

Not surprisingly, public support for the war in Iraq is slipping. Almost six in 10 Americans, in a Gallup poll this month, want some or all troops to come home. For the first time, a bipartisan group of congressmen is beginning to press for an exit deadline.

The White House response? A series of speeches starting this week intended, according to spokesman Scott McClellan, as an "update" for the American people. But far more is needed than another hopeful scenario, or a set of idealistic goals without a hard assessment of the realities on the ground and what has brought the USA to this point.

That sort of assessment has been missing from the Bush administration, which still seems in denial that its Iraq adventure has strayed so far from the original plan.

Instead of candor, the administration has supplied a stream of shifting explanations about the reasons for the Iraq war, realities on the ground, expected costs, duration and outcome.

Start with the primary reason President Bush cited for the war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the USA. No such weapons were found. Nor was any credible connection to al-Qaeda. The administration then switched to the argument that its chief aims were to remove a dictator and bring democracy to the region.

Or the low-balling on costs. Former Deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq strategy, early on estimated a "range from $10 billion to $100 billion." The war tab so far tops $200 billion.

Or the too-early declaration of victory. On May 1, 2003, Bush landed on a returning aircraft carrier, declaring major combat operations over against the backdrop of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. The triumph was short-lived as an insurgency took hold.

Since then, officials have repeatedly underestimated the insurgency. Every event that was supposed to derail it - the capture of Saddam, the transfer of sovereignty, the elections in January - has failed to do so. Just three weeks ago, Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in its "last throes." Tell that to the families of dozens of Iraqis and Americans who've died since.

No battle plan, the military truism runs, survives the first contact with the enemy. But winning the battles, and the wars, requires recognizing misjudgments and recalibrating.

How to recalibrate in Iraq? Start with unflinching answers to three questions:

• What is the right U.S. troop level? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted Iraq to be a showcase for his efforts to transform the military into a lean, high-tech force. The 150,000 combat troops deployed turned out to be enough to topple Saddam - but not enough to secure the peace. Today, reports from Iraq suggest that forces are stretched too thin to overwhelm the insurgency.

Meanwhile, recruiting has become difficult, forces are drawn thin elsewhere and a draft is a political non-starter. Caught in that squeeze, it's fair to wonder where the administration's thinking begins. Does it ask first what's needed to win the war and then supply it? Or does it say this force level is what's politically possible; make do. The latter invites failure.

• When will Iraqis be able to take over? The U.S. strategy, properly, is for Iraqi forces to defend their country. Improving their skills is supposed to ease the pressure on U.S. forces, and their number, 169,000, is impressive. Nonetheless, it hides a dismal reality: They are patchily trained. Minimum competence could take two years or more.

• How long can public support be maintained? Americans have until now generally backed the war, but recent erosion is ominous. Painting more rosy scenarios that are never attained would accelerate that erosion, eventually making the war unsustainable. Americans need to understand what success is supposed to look like, and they need benchmarks they can see achieved.

In our view, there is no choice but to stay the course. Cutting and running would cauterize the losses, but the longer-term risks are alarming: of Iraq becoming a terrorist refuge; of full-scale civil war; of hopes for democracy crumbling in Iraq and the region.

Preventing all that from happening requires looking at the facts as they are, not as some might wish them to be, and adjusting the approach accordingly.

The White House declined to submit an opposing view to this editorial.

Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.