About the Iraq War, Pt. 2

CNN reported that Bush, in his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, stated that "[a]s Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

 

So, basically, Bush is stating that as long as their continues to be insurgent/resistance/terrorist activity that overwhelms the Iraqi military and keeps some some level of instability in Iraqi politics, America will continue to have troop presence in Iraq. For those keeping a scorecard, let's see how Mr. Bush's conceptualization of our military involvement in Iraq has evolved.

 

First, we were primarily launching a pre-emptive attack against a country alleged to be hostile to America and supposedly in possession of weapons with which that country could launch an attack on the continental United States. 

 

Then, when the infamous weapons of mass destruction which threatened us could not be found, the war was justified on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a vile, brutal dictator whose regime needed "changed."

 

We are now in the latest of these phases in which our military is being used to facilitate nation-building by providing homeland security for the metamorphosed Iraq.

 

Whether we consider each of these goals as attainable serially or in parallel, it seems that that we already have victory for items one and two. We have neutralized the WMD threat (okay, the threat was "neutralized" by Saddam no longer possessing such a threat) and we have removed the dictator and instituted regime change. 

 

That leaves us with only the last goals of nation-building and and Iraqi homeland security.  Victory with regard to these aspects is a bit trickier to define. But it's also debatable that the definition of victory for the Iraqis in this area is the same as the definition of victory for U.S. forces.  At some point, Iraqis must take over full responsibility for their country and its government. Unless we are to make Iraq a U.S. territory, we have no responsibility to ensure comprehensive success of that country's political reform. Nor should our military be responsible for the national security of Iraq for some indefinite period of time.

 

Which of course, brings to the latest goal that the Bush Administration has woven into its story of Iraq:  defeat of terrorists.  Bush and Company have alleged that we must defeat terrorists in Iraq to prevent them from posing some threat to us on our soil here in America.

 

I guess things have come full-circle. We started out in Iraq to prevent an attack on America. And to this day, Bush contends we are still there for the same reason. We apparently are in pursuit of a goal so elusive that the only thing more elusive is the Bush Administrations credibility regarding this whole operation.