MILITARY UPDATE
Whatever the reason, we're in Iraq for the long haul
By Tom Philpott
More than 525 Americans have died and 3,000 have been wounded in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis have died,too, not all of them Saddam Hussein supporters.
Fresh U.S. ground forces, 100,000 strong and one-third of them reserve or National Guard, are preparing to replace soldiers completing a tough first year in Iraq. Troops — coming or going — are under great strain.
For all of this, the primary reason for invading Iraq — Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — cannot be found.
David Kay, President Bush's top weapons inspector until last month, suspects now that large stockpiles of WMD did not exist when Bush ordered the invasion last March.
Whether the administration intentionally exaggerated WMD evidence, or failed to demand what America and its military deserved — a careful, rigorous assessment of the threat before going to war — it's hard not to conclude the war had a muddled goal.
Many service members trust and admire the president, and support the war and occupation. They captured Saddam. Libya has vowed to end its own WMD programs. Military people have seen first-hand progress for the Iraqi people, though the remaining challenges can be overwhelming.
And what difference does it make how we got into Iraq? We are in, and in for years.
Defenders of the president, particularly leading Republican lawmakers like the chairmen of the congressional armed services committees, Sen. John Warner and Rep. Duncan Hunter, backed the war because of WMD.
Still they try to deflect criticism of the president, implying that war critics dishonor the warriors.
Not true.
Even a monumental intelligence or leadership failure can't detract from the skill and bravery of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. They have toppled a tyrant. They struggle to protect a budding democracy in the face of physical dangers and difficult, politically motivated deadlines.
That doesn't change the fact that this administration pushed for war on fears of WMD, and not on the bad character of Saddam or some unsung song of freedom in every Muslim heart.
These days, in a typical 24-hour stretch in Iraq, U.S. troops conduct more than a thousand patrols, a few dozen offensive operations and capture several suspected insurgents. In turn, even in a period of "relative stability," coalition forces face an average of 23 violent attacks a day. U.S. deaths average more than one a day.
Since the war began, the Defense Department has announced each death of an American with an e-mail to news outlets.
To honor their sacrifice in a very small way, I make a point of reading every one: name, age, unit and cause of death, usually an improvised explosive device.
On Jan. 31, the day President Bush bowed to political pressure and agreed to appoint a bipartisan commission to investigate why no weapons of mass destruction have been found, the first casualty report read as follows: "Pfc. Luis A. Moreno, 19, of Bronx, N.Y., died on Jan. 29, 2004, at the Lakenheath Medical Treatment Facility, United Kingdom. Moreno was shot on Jan. 23 while he was guarding a gas station in Baghdad, Iraq."
No WMD, I thought, but a soldier dies protecting a gas station. Some day it will all make sense or, like Vietnam, no sense at all.
Maybe Bush got faulty intelligence. If so, he didn't sound angry about it. He praised hardworking government analysts and said that, with or without WMD, the war was still worthwhile.
So it seems more likely that this president got the kind of data he wanted, and it justified war.
In the fall of 2002, Bush twice noted in speeches that Saddam had tried to kill his father, the former president, on a visit to Kuwait in the 1990s. Was revenge a factor?
His father left Saddam in power at the end of the first Gulf War. Was Saddam unfinished family business?
Some critics blame the war on the pro-Israeli agenda of neo-conservatives on the national security team, many of whom embraced aggressive foreign policy principles set down by the Project for a New American Century in 1997.
PNAC said it "boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad," wants threats addressed "before crises emerge, and seeks an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles."
Signers of the principles, three years before George W. became president, included Dick Cheney, now vice president; Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense; Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's deputy; I. Lewis Libby, a White House assistant; Elliott Abrams, top adviser on the Arab-Israeli conflict; and Bush's brother Jeb.
Colin Powell laid out another relevant set of principles in 1992 while still chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
The Powell Doctrine said U.S. military action should be taken only when: it is used as a last resort; there is clear risk to national security; the force applied is overwhelming; there is strong public support for war; there is a clear exit strategy.
The Iraq war missed a few of those gates.
"I'm persuaded that this administration decided to attack Iraq and then went looking for a reason to do it," says retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar. He was commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command after the first Gulf War and supports Howard Dean for president.
Hoar says Bush "cherry picked" the most favorable intelligence for war. He is especially alarmed by the Bush pre-emption doctrine: strike a dangerous foe before he attacks you.
"The policy is bordering on immoral," Hoar says.
With no WMD found, he said, Bush's claim that Iraq posed "a clear and present danger from these weapons is absolutely bankrupt. That's the case on which we went to war. The other stuff is horse hockey."
Tough months are ahead for President Bush. And for the U.S. military.
Questions, comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com. Or visit Tom Philpott's Web site.
