On 13 September 2007, George W Bush spoke to the people of the United States about Iraq. It was the eighth time the president has delivered a status report on the war and - in indicating that the military "surge" has achieved modest results and that only a few troops can return home - it was his most sombre assessment to date. However, since "Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America", additional troops will only "return on success." Bush thus implied that large numbers of Americans would remain in Iraq throughout the remaining seventeen months of his presidency. His speech presented not an exit strategy but a profession of faith: US troops can "win" in Iraq.
Bob Burnett is a writer based in Berkeley, California
Also by Bob Burnett in openDemocracy:
"A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"(27 February 2007)
"America's choice: imperial vs constitutional rule" (10 May 2007)
"The road not taken: the Iraq Study Group" (21 May 2007)
"Alberto Gonzales's cookery lesson" (30 May 2007)
"Bush's failed freedom agenda" (25 June 2007)
"Bush's Iraqi endgame" (17 July 2007)
"Washington's Iraqi anchor" (30 Jully 2007)
"Karl Rove's last fix" (14 August 2007)
Over the course of a war that has now lasted (with no end in sight) four and a half years, Bush's popularity has declined, as has support for protracted involvement. The current opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans believe the US made a mistake sending troops to Iraq. Moreover, 60% favour a timetable for withdrawing troops. A New York Times/CBS News poll published on 10 September found that only 5% of respondents trust the Bush administration to resolve the Iraq war. However, Congress garnered only 21% support. The public's favourite choice was "U.S. Military Commanders."
In his speech, President Bush emphasised he is following the advice of the commander of US forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus. On 10-11 September, General Petraeus presented his status report to the US Congress. He emphasised "progress" made in buttressing security and downplayed the political situation, where little has been accomplished. He argued that current force levels - twenty combat brigades - are required for the security of Iraqi civilians and there should not be a significant drawdown of US troops until spring 2008. He suggested that substantial US force levels - roughly fifteen brigades - would be required for an indefinite period.
At the beginning of General Petraeus's testimony before the House of Representatives armed-services committee, chairman Ike Skelton (Democrat, Missouri) argued that the focus of the hearings should not be whether or not the surge has succeeded but rather "the overall security of this nation; whether or not "Iraq is the war worth the risk of breaking our army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation." A day later, the Senate armed-services committee's ranking Republican, John Warner (Virginia), asked whether the current strategy in Iraq was "making America safer." General Petraeus replied: "Sir, I don't know, actually."
A policy of evasion
The debate about US involvement in Iraq should be conducted within the framework of national-security strategy. However, the Bush administration, and most Republicans, refuses to engage in this debate. Instead, the White House continually changes tactics without addressing the larger issue of whether the current strategy in Iraq is making America safer.
President Bush continues to lead the "stay-until-we-win" Republican phalanx. After having proffered various justifications for the occupation of Iraq, Bush has decided that it's the central front of his "war on terror". On 22 August, he compared Iraq to Vietnam: "If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened... Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America"..."Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror - but it's the central front."
Thus, President Bush and General Petraeus want an open-ended commitment to Iraq. (The president's announcement that he will reduce US forces to their pre-surge levels was political theatre: most observers understood that the surge forces would have to be reduced in the spring of 2008 as American troops serve fifteen-month tours of active duty.)
Around a quarter of the American electorate supports the Bush stance. Because of the communication power of the White House, the stay-until-we-win perspective has received the most US media airtime in recent months and support for the president's position has increased. Furthermore, the front-runners for the Republican nomination for president all embrace the notion that Iraq is the centre of the war on terror. On 12 September, presidential candidate John McCain toured Iowa in a bus emblazoned with the slogan "no surrender."
Also in openDemocracy on Washington's hearings on Iraq:
Paul Rogers, "Iran: war and surprise" (13 September 2007)
Sidney Blumenthal, "The American politics of Iraqi war" (17 September 2007)
Tareq Y Ismael, "The architects of Iraq" (18 September 2007)
However, another quarter of the electorate feels the US should immediately begin to withdraw troops from Iraq. Some Democrats support these sentiments. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (Democrat, California) argues: "The American people want [Congress] to bring our troops home... We can use the power of the purse to fence in funding so that we can fully fund bringing our troops and our military contractors out of Iraq and hopefully in short order, no later than April [2008]."
The problem with the "bring-them-home-now" perspective is that it is also tactical; it ignores the strategic issue of America's safety.
Polls indicate that the remaining 50% of the American public don't know what to do about Iraq. Iraq expert George Packer observes in the New Yorker: "The country seems trapped in an eternal present, paralyzed by its past mistakes."
The United States desperately needs a strategic perspective on Iraq: a long-term view that determines the best course of action after considering national priorities. That's what Senator Jack Reed (Democrat, Rhode Island) argued for in his response to the president's address on Iraq: "Do we continue to heed the president's call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops...? Or do we follow what is in our nation's best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?" Reed called for the US to disengage itself from Iraq's "civil war" and to develop a strategy to deal with both the diplomatic issues in the middle east and the pursuit of al- Qaida.
A change of course?
In December 2006, the Iraq Study Group took a strategic perspective on Iraq. The non-partisan body led by James A Baker and Lee h Hamilton reported that "(there) is no action that the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq, and cautioned that "(the) United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq."
The Iraq Study Group provided three compelling reasons why the US should not continue to maintain large numbers of troops in Iraq:
"First, and most importantly, the United States faces other security dangers in the world, and a continuing Iraqi commitment of American ground forces at present levels will leave no reserve available to meet other contingencies."
"Second, the long-term commitment of American ground forces to Iraq at current levels is adversely affecting Army readiness, with less than a third of the Army units currently at high readiness levels."
"Third, such a decision would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of quelling sectarian violence."
Both the Iraq Study Group report and George Packer's New Yorker article suggest that a strategic perspective needs to consider three questions:
* how does continued allocation of fiteen-to-twenty combat brigades to Iraq affect military readiness?
* how does continuation of the occupation impact the "war on terror?"
* what are America's strategic interests in Iraq?
America continues to be deeply divided about the conduct of the war and its relationship to national security, in general. In these circumstances it is even more essential than usual that political leaders offer clarity and honesty on these vital matters.
The Bush administration has not met this obligation. It has proven incapable of thinking strategically. The president and most members of his party are locked onto one tactic: "stay until we win". Jack Reed's speech, and the comments of Ike Skelton and John Warner, indicate there is growing congressional interest in addressing the question of whether involvement in Iraq is actually making America safer. Historically, in the American system, it has been the job of the executive branch of government to develop strategy and the responsibility of the legislative to fund it and, occasionally, make changes at the margins. In order to change direction in Iraq, before George W Bush leaves office, it will be up to Congress to redefine American strategy in the "war" on terror. While possible, it seems unlikely this will happen.
