Iraq quagmire: Bush on horns of dilemma

On the eve of the invasion the scenario in Iraq was normal and peaceful. It was a secular administration under Saddam Hussein, and people enjoyed religious freedom. When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and no link could be established between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, President Bush changed his rhetoric and started talking about exporting democracy and freedom to the Middle East. Iraq has never attacked US or US interests and played no role in the attack on September 11, 2001. All propaganda in this context by neocons in the Bush administration has failed to convince any one.

Exporting democracy has become an illusion, to say the least. Over the last three years, following the downfall of Saddam Hussein, the people have been watching with disgust and anguish the events unfolding in Iraq. But in spite of a series of protest demonstrations against the war, all over the United States for the last three years, President Bush has not budged an inch from his stand on Iraq issue, showing that he is committed to stay the course whatever may happen.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The other side of the coin is that, having found no other alternative, the people of the United States have peacefully registered their voice against the Republican government in the Congressional elections on November 7. The message is clear and loud that the US should get out of Iraq without raising any question. The only person who does not seem to have learned the lesson from the elections is George W. Bush.

More than three centuries ago John Adams, the second president of US, spoke about the need to let evidence guide actions and policies. Facts are stubborn things; and passion cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. In making the unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 President Bush allowed his wishes, inclinations and passion to alter the state of facts and evidence of the threat America faced from Iraq, a few thousand miles away in the Asian continent.

With the rise in the number of deaths of American soldiers in occupied Iraq there has been mounting pressure on the Bush administration to pull out troops from there. The death toll of American troops stands at 3000 now, with several thousand wounded and many of them may not be able to lead an active life. Two schools of thought have emerged on the withdrawal of troops. The pro-administration group is of the opinion that total withdrawal of troops at this stage will tantamount to surrender to "terrorists," who have launched unabated violence, and that the Iraqi administration would face serious turmoil in the absence of well-organized police and military forces.

President Bush's recent rhetoric is that when Iraq stands up we will stand down, which means that when Iraqis themselves will be able to take over responsibility American troops will be withdrawn. In this context, the Bush administration has been arguing that progress has been made in training Iraqi police and military forces, but it has been moving at snail's pace as of now as can be seen from the assessment of America's top commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, who said, "Just one of the 120 US trained Iraqi army and police battalions was able to operate without US forces." It seems that training the Iraqi military and police will be a long drawn process. By now over 66,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in the on-going war.

As the death toll of American soldiers continues to rise, the taxpayers bear the burden of the costs in Iraq war. The Iraq war costs taxpayers $ 195 million per day. The non-partisan congressional budget office has estimated a cost of $ 9 billion per month. It has exceeded $ 1 trillion by now. This figure is based on the research done by Congressional Research Service.

There is growing discontent among the Americans, and they are questioning the motive of the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq which is costing billions of dollars and the lives of American soldiers, apart from the massive public debt. The cost of this war is the visible erosion of the American image; the breeding of a new generation of terrorists; and moral weakening of American power and will to face serious threats elsewhere.

Support for this war is declining rapidly as days pass by, which is the opposite of what happened during the Korean or Vietnam wars. The Bush administration's frequent change in rhetoric did not bring any change in the minds of Americans, except hard core Republicans. This change in rhetoric has caused doubt in the minds of Americans who are, by and large, unconcerned about the political game. Professor of political science, John Mueller, of Ohio State University in an article in "Foreign Affairs" said:

"Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean or the Vietnam War. And if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline."

In respect of insurgency in Iraq, the Bush administration has also been playing a game. Initially they depicted the insurgents as Saddam Hussein's fidayeen. Secondly, they described insurgents as army personnel and followers of Baath Party. And thirdly, the notion of foreign fighters was added to this kind of rhetoric.

The use of this terminology intends to include Syria and Iran in the extended war of the Bush administration. The same game of regime change would be replayed here. Therefore, the situation is likely to be complicated further by this extended war, if it happens. Contrary to what the Bush administration has been propagating Congressman John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, gave a picture of the situation in Iraq. He said that 93 percent are Iraqis while a very small percentage are foreign citizens; 80 percent Iraqis want that US should leave Iraq, and 45 percent think that it is justified to kill American troops."

Meanwhile, the Iraq study group led by James Baker, former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came out with a lengthy report on December 6, which also reflects a grave picture in Iraq. It, however, recommends withdrawal of troops not before 2008, which serves the purpose of President Bush as he had announced that he would not quit Iraq during his presidency.

The situation in Iraq is one that President Bush and his advisers should have foreseen if they had followed the history of Iraq which has been torn by ethnic, religious, tribal and national rivalries for centuries. This being the picture of Iraq historically, President Bush, the senior, did not contemplate to invade Iraq during Gulf war 1 in 1991.

The American people have spoken. Experts across the political spectrum have spoken. President Bush's newly appointed Secretary of Defense Gates has spoken, and the Iraq study group has spoken. Senator Hillary Clinton recommends that the president listen and change the course in Iraq. In spite of political and academic pressure the president is on the horns of dilemma on a future course of action as a result of a new element in the conflict -- Saudi concern.

There has been a veiled warning from the Saudi Kingdom, one of the closet allies of America in the Middle East, not to leave Iraq at this stage, keeping Iraq unstable. As a result of growing influence of the Shiite community in the region the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is being threatened. The King is thinking that if the present conflict continues and spills over to the Kingdom the Royal family will face serious consequences. If president Bush leaves Iraq under pressure from home he is likely to face the music as the US is dependent on Saudi oil, 300 US-Saudi joint ventures are in operation in the Kingdom.

If the Bush administration does not listen to friendly advice and continues to stay, according to the strategy, the situation is likely to get worse in future. The bottom line of the insurgents' objectives is that the United States should pull out from Iraq in a disgraceful manner, as she did from Vietnam, or the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

Mohammad Amjad Hossain, a former diplomat writes from Virginia.