EDITORIAL
War in Iraq requires change of leadership
It's time for President Bush to consider carefully the tragic precedent of President Lyndon Johnson, whose conduct of the war in Vietnam went so contrary to his expectations that by 1968, his credibility utterly expended, he declined to seek another term.
Iraq is not Vietnam, and Bush is nowhere near the depths to which Johnson sank. But he may reach them soon unless he makes abrupt and wrenching changes.
The issue that must concern us, however, is not Bush's political viability, but the incalculable damage this nation will suffer if our Iraq adventure runs onto the rocks. Steadfastness and loyalty are splendid traits in a president, but right now we need a willingness to recognize and correct a disastrous course.
Our problems in Iraq are many, ranging from the need to get more international cooperation in the rebuilding effort through doing a better job of understanding the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people.
It will take time to make the necessary changes and adjustments. But one area where we can, and must, act now is in restoring the credibility of our military there. That means a change in top leadership in the Pentagon.
We came to Iraq thinking of our troops as liberators. Like it or not, that is not how we are now seen by many in the Arab world.
Rumsfeld responsible
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — as the person in charge — must take responsibility for an ill-conceived and badly managed operation in Iraq. If anyone has performed superbly, it is the uniformed U.S. military, quickly adjusting and making the best of the bad assumptions that landed them in their current predicament.
Many of those calling for Rumsfeld's resignation have cited Abu Ghraib as the smoking gun. But that's only a symptom of more fundamental problems.
True, the prison scandal has stained American honor and poisoned already-flagging U.S. credibility with Iraqis. Reporters such as New Yorker's Seymour Hersh suggest that last year, as mounting insurrection in Iraq surprised and baffled American commanders, the need for reliable intelligence became so desperate that Rumsfeld approved the extension of a highly secret, anti-al-Qaida interrogation program to Iraq — even to Abu Ghraib.
The problem for Bush and for the nation, however, runs far deeper than prisoner abuse. In plain fact, the mission to convert Iraq into a democracy is faltering.
The architects of this war in Iraq, mainly civilian leaders in the Defense Department, have been stunningly wrong in nearly every premise. Critics such as Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, say the current situation in Iraq was bound to happen because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.
Zinni says civilian policy-makers in the Pentagon, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith, have "hijacked U.S. foreign policy." Because they pushed war in Iraq "to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs," says Zinni, "they should bear responsibility."
More troops were needed
Gen. Eric Shinseki was right that hundreds of thousands of troops would be required for the occupation of Iraq; Rumsfeld and his aides were wrong. Because of that failure, promised reconstruction has faltered, and the cost of the occupation has reached $5 billion a month. Because security wasn't established from Day 1, the genie of insurrection is out of the bottle.
To stuff it back in the bottle, Rumsfeld has tried training Iraqi police forces, recruiting foreign troops, making deals with former Baathist generals. But the violence worsens. In the wake of Monday's car bombing, which killed the president of Iraq's governing council, the country is close to anarchy.
This newspaper doubted the wisdom of making war on Iraq, but we're there now and we're stuck with the need to succeed. Withdrawal now would leave Iraq in worse shape than we found it, and set back the U.S. military as badly as its 1973 withdrawal from Vietnam.
President must act
The president must act now to prevent such a disaster. If he is to save his Iraq mission and his country's honor, he must start by quickly replacing the Pentagon's leadership.
That's hardly a solution for all our problems. But it would mark a dramatic first step as America seeks a new course for Iraq.
We'd suggest Bush and the nation might be most comfortable with his current secretary of state, Colin Powell, running the Pentagon. Powell has been well prepared by his service as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as national security adviser, and his own combat experience qualifies him eminently to send American forces into harm's way.
