By raw turnout numbers alone, the early returns from the Iraqi elections hint at success of the democratic process. The success of the American Iraq policy, however, hinges on much more than voter turnout. And unfortunately, the US — having failed to establish benchmarks measuring successes or shortcomings — appears increasingly bamboozled over its short and long-term strategy for exiting Iraq. The weekly casualty list serves as the only consistent barometer of the health of the Iraqi reconstruction-democratization process.
Sooner or later, the United States will tire of the cost, in blood and dollars, of Iraq. This simple principle — that Americans will not forever sacrifice for a cause that lacks fixed, measurable objectives — explained the unceremonious US departure from Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, the Johnson and Nixon administrations repeatedly promised victory and assured the public that progress was being made. But the Saigon government remained perpetually unstable, its army reliably unreliable.
And all the while, American costs mounted, the public grew skeptical, and Congressional support plummeted. The loss of Congressional support forced a policy shift followed by a hasty retreat.
History should be a guide for the Bush administration. For if it is not able to convey a realistic and measurable road map for leaving Iraq, Congressional pressure — even in a Congress dominated by Republicans — will eventually force the president’s hand. During last week’s Senate debate over the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, questions over Iraq loomed large, even among Bush’s staunchest supporters.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, won his seat in 2002 on the coattails of Bush’s post-Sept.11 popularity.
Since taking office, he has been a strong supporter of Bush on the domestic and international front. Yet his remarks in support of Rice were revealing and rife with anxiety. Said Alexander: “I don’t believe we need an exit strategy in Iraq. We need a success strategy. But such a strategy may mean taking a little more realistic view of what we mean by success. It is one thing to help people win their freedom, as we did in Iraq. It is another to help a country become a stable, pluralistic democracy, a flourishing society. We need to ask ourselves how many American lives are we willing to sacrifice to do this? How long are we willing for it to take? And what is our standard for success?”
Another Republican ally of Bush, fellow-Texan Kay Baily Hutchison, pointedly did not cite Iraq in her defense of Rice. In fact, Hutchison conceded that serious errors had been made. Noted Hutchison: “I, for one, will say mistakes have been made. I don’t think war is ever perfect...However, I don’t think anyone could have anticipated all that has happened or the kind of enemy that we face. An enemy that is willing to blow itself up to kill innocent people requires a different strategy and approach. We are making the adjustments.”
Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, who hails from a Republican “red” state won by Bush in both 2000 and 2004, voted to authorize the US invasion of Iraq in 2002. But Bayh, considered a dark horse contender for the White House in 2008, voted against Rice’s confirmation due to Iraq. Declared Bayh: “I rise to express my opposition to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice...because she has been a principal architect of policy errors that have tragically undermined our prospects for success in this endeavor. Those in charge must be held accountable for mistakes. It is heartbreaking that the sacrifices that have been made, the idealism of our troops, America’s prospects for success in Iraq, our very standing in the world, have too often been undercut by ineptitude at the highest levels of our own government.”
Veteran Democratic lions Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, both of whom opposed invading Iraq, also made their opinions known. “Dr. Rice was a key member of the national security team that developed and justified the rationale for war, and it has been a catastrophic failure, a continuing quagmire,” stated Kennedy. Added Byrd, “In a most ironic and deadly twist, the false situation described by the administration before the war, namely, that Iraq was a training ground for terrorists poised to attack the United States, is exactly the situation that our war in Iraq has created.”
Rice was confirmed by a vote of 85-13, seemingly a ringing endorsement of her and the policies she championed as Bush’s national security adviser. But the contentious debate over her confirmation, which centered on Iraq, illustrates the mood of Congress, which is growing increasingly uneasy.
This was all the more true last week, when the Pentagon stated that 150,000 US troops will stay in Iraq at least through the end of 2007; the White House requested another $80 billion to pay for the ongoing operation in Iraq; and US troops suffered the single bloodiest week to date.
— David Dumke is principal of the Washington-based MidAmr Group.
