Bush to Iraq: We're Staying Put, Partner

Despite President Bush's talk of bringing some troops home from Iraq, the real message in his White House address is an unrepentant justification for the 2003 invasion and a refusal to change course. The unyielding stridency in Bush's message somewhat surprised me, given the Republican electoral disaster at the polls last November. So his steadfast adherence to the essential argument for the American intervention in Iraq--to defeat terrorism and keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of America's enemies--also signaled to me that the administration may now be moving closer to launching a strike on Iran in order to eradicate Tehran's nuclear program.

Threaded into the 2,577-word speech are unabashed references familiar to anyone who followed the administration's highly questionable reasoning for the invasion five years ago: the prolongation of the war is necessary to bring freedom to Iraq, so that Iraq can be a lasting ally of the U.S., so Iraq can serve as a model of democracy for the rest of the Arab world, so Iraq will help Washington fight Al Qaeda as well as state-sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria, so Iraq can help deter a future 9/11 on American soil.

Or, as Bush put it in one succinct paragraph:

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at home.

The most important part of the address was when Bush "revealed" that Iraqi political leaders have decided they want a long-term relationship with the U.S., because they realize that their success will require a partnership that well outlives Bush's term of office. Bush noted that he is only too ready to sign such a deal with the Iraqis with a view toward protecting America's interests in the Middle East.

Bush again:

They understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

I'm not sure what's stranger, Bush's determination to pursue his unreconstructed policy in Iraq in the face of its rejection by American voters, or his insistence on drawing a narrative of purpose in Iraq bordering on fantasy to support his insistence on staying the course.

One of the main themes of Bush's rosy outline is how Iraqis have turned on Al Qaeda and put Osama bin Laden's men on the run. Bush neglects to mention that prior to the 2003 invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no proven relations with bin Laden. Considering how Al Qaeda mushroomed as a battlefield player in Iraq, and remains a potent global threat, it's hard to claim any definitive success over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Bush speaks about the improving humanitarian situation as if to show that the price of the invasion was worth it, without noting the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths or the fact that 4 million Iraqis, including most of the best and the brightest, have fled their homes to take refuge elsewhere.

Bush depicts the Iraqi government as a product of democracy allied with the United States whose overthrow is sought by terrorists that seek to dominate the Middle East and then attack Americans on U.S. soil. That's a lot of distortion in a single breath. In the prevailing climate of sectarian killings, intense fear and absence of concepts like the rule of law, the Iraqi government resembles less a democracy than a collection of victorious ethnic factions dividing the spoils of war. It was thus shockingly premature for the President to speak about a long-term political-economic-security deal that he wants to cut with the current Iraqi government; as Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Congress the other day, the question of who should rule Iraq is actually far from having been settled. In reference to Iraqi political leaders, Crocker explained, "They are not simply grappling with the issue of who rules Iraq, but they are asking what kind of country Iraq will be, how it will be governed, and how Iraqis will share power and resources among each other." Pushing or strong-arming Iraqi politicians into a long-term security deal for the protection of self-proclaimed American interests smacks of the faulty pre-invasion logic that we know what is best for Iraqis and will impose it on them with the support of Iraqis who agree with us.

The main security problem in Iraq is not Al Qaeda terrorism, as bad as that is, but an insurgency by Iraqi Sunni Arabs who feel cut out of power after the fall of Saddam. It is a stretch to describe the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government as an American ally, as if it were Britain or Israel, given the close political and military connections much of it has to Bush's sworn enemy, Iran. There is little sign that the Sunni insurgents or pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiites are thinking about taking the fight to America's shores. Al Qaeda would like to, but given 9/11, that would seem to be unrelated to its success or failure in Iraq. As for Iraq being an example for the rest of the Middle East...well, let's just say few Arabs I know are begging for democracy, Iraqi-style, in their countries. Bush's polices, in fact, have given democracy a rather bad name for many in the region.

The dominant idea in Bush's address was that American power will remain in Iraq until America's enemies are defeated. No matter that the invasion created new enemies like Al Qaeda there, or that the continued troop presence has put old enemies like Iran increasingly in Bush's cross hairs because they object to America's attempts to control the region. The President devoted only a few passing sentences to the Iraqi government's failure to demonstrate any meaningful steps toward reconciliation with Iraq Sunni Arabs. Bush also paid merely a bit of lip service to the need to work for "peace in the Holy Land," to solve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that continues to do so much to destabilize the Middle East. He showed no further inclination to adopt the Baker-Hamilton recommendation of engaging Iran and Syria diplomatically. Instead, he issued pointed warnings, declaring "we must defeat Al Qaeda [and] counter Iran...the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end."

Not to be an alarmist, it should be pointed out that Bush's rhetoric on Iran was kept to a minimum, at least compared to previous speeches that touched on the issue. But the bottom line I read in Bush's address is that he intends to keep American troops fully deployed in Iraq indefinitely--certainly until he leaves office in January 2009--and that he is not playing to compromise in the struggle with Iran. Bush sees the Middle East as full of diabolical foes and he intends to do everything in his power to defeat them.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo