George Bush's stance on Iraq

Iraq: The current outlook in Iraq is not so good. A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report was recently released at the end of July, which is not as optimist as the president. It outlines three possible future scenarios, with the worst entailing a civil war. The civil war would destabilize the country and continue to be a place for terrorist operations. Even if it was contained in most areas, it would be unlikely to control it all, and the bordering countries could have influx of terrorists, potentially destabilizing the region. The most optimistic scenario would be a loose central government, and the security of the nation would depend solely on the leader. If the leader appeared weak, then there would still be the problem of insurgents and terrorism. If the leader is strong, then they could become another dictator. (NIE report findings reported by Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, September 23, 2004. Link ) Additionally, the U.S. has decided to scale down military operations until after the U.S. presidential elections. An anonymous senior official commented to the LA Times that " '[w]hen this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously […] Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications' of a large-scale offensive" (Mazzetti, 2004). While this may benefit either political candidate, it could seriously impact the security of Iraq, as well as potentially push back the timetable for Iraqi elections.

However, these deal with the future of the situation in Iraq. Current problems include: the number of insurgents has almost quadrupled, insurgent attacks have increased (including the use of car bombings, almost forty since the beginning of September (Khalil and Sanders, 2004)), insurgents control more areas in Iraq, reconstruction has fallen behind schedule, and the number of wounded and dead U.S. soldiers continues to rise. (Center for American Progress, September 22, 2004 link ) As of October 7, 2004, 1,061 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq (Frenkel, 2004), and these figures do not include the soldiers which are so severely wounded that they cannot return to duty. Disputed figures exist about the cost of the war, but however one looks at it, the war will be expensive. With all of these current and mounting problems, both candidates have to address how to make the situation safer for the troops, the Iraqis, and the American public.

President George W. Bush:

Description of candidate's position: President Bush views the war in Iraq as a central part of the war on terror, and thus the war is necessary in order to defend the homeland against terrorism. He has criticized those who have called the war wrong, misguided, or unnecessary. In response to the most recent intelligence which reveals that Iraq did not possess WMD, Bush stands by his decision to invade Iraq, as well as arguing that the report justifies the decision, as it details how Saddam has continually violated the international agreements, indicating that Saddam may sponsor terrorism. link Therefore, Bush will do what it takes to ensure peace and security. To gain peace in Iraq, Bush has outlined a five step plan: (1) transfer authority to the Iraqi citizens, (2) establish peace and security, including training the Iraqi troops, (3) reconstruction of infrastructure, (4) add international assistance on the transition to democracy, and (5) conduct free national elections by January. Some of these steps have already been completed, while others are ongoing. Presidential conference on Iraq, September 23, 2004

Quotation from the candidate: "As friends of liberty, the new leaders of Iraq are friends of America, and all civilized nations. As enemies of tyranny and terror, the people of Iraq and the American troops and civilians supporting their dreams of freedom have been the target of acts of violence. The enemies of freedom are using suicide bombing, beheadings, and other horrific acts to try to block progress. We're sickened by the atrocities, but we'll never be intimidated. And freedom is winning. […] The path to our safety and to Iraq's future as a democratic nation lies in the resolute defense of freedom. If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations. To retreat now would betray our mission, our word, and our friends." President Bush's conference with Iraqi Prime Minister, September 23, 2004

Assessment of the proposal:

Positive: Larry Wortzel, Vice President and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, supports Bush's argument that Iraq is indeed part of the war on terror, and that we should continue to be on the offense: 'We are in for a long war. At home, we must remember that there are still clandestine cells of terrorists embedded in our society. Our homeland security system is vital to our protection. And I believe it is important to keep in mind that Americans did not seek this war. We were attacked for what we are--a free nation--by a group that wants to curb that freedom and curtail our liberties […] Like the innocents who were murdered in the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, or on United Airlines flight 93, we cannot opt out of this war. A strong offense is our best defense." August 2, 2004 Heritage Lecture

Additionally, failure in Iraq is not something that the U.S. public or the president will allow. Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explains: "And most Americans will support them in every possible way. The United States stood up to Nazism, Fascism and Communism in the 20th century. Despite pressure from the isolationist Right, the blame-America-first Left and Europe's neo-Neville Chamberlins, most Americans are not going to want to back down to the totalitarians of the 21st century &endash; even though the struggle against them has turned out to be more painful than anticipated. It also would be premature to give up on Iraqis, most of whom continue to express a commitment to freedom and democracy, as well as confidence in the future (see for example the recent survey by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies) […] The enemy's plight, however, is that he [sic] is fighting Americans who understand that costly as this war is proving to be, the price of defeat would be much steeper." September 15, 2004

Negative: Bush's continuous emphasis on creating a democratic Iraq is misplaced, as the history of the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, counters democratic ideas. Patrick Basham, senior fellow with the Center for Representative Government of the Cato Institute, explains that a rising democracy might even counter the United States, because "[e]ven if some version of democracy took root . . . anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that Iraqi elections in the short-term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States" (2004, 4). And if the conditions to democracy do not exist, "premature elections [destabilize] already fragile political orders and [offer] radicals access to the state, which they in turn used to destroy democratic practices" (Basham, 2004, 17). Thus, while Bush may win the war, he will not necessary win the peace, and his quest for democracy may make things worse. Policy Analysis Paper No. 505, "Can Iraq Be Democratic?" January 5, 2004

This is in line with the fact that the policy to continue the war in Iraq may be more costly than it is worth. Rajan Menon, fellow at the RAND Institute and professor of international relations, argues that continuing the war is problematic: It will "result in still more casualties among U.S. troops, more Iraqi civilians inadvertently killed during military operations in the Sunni Triangle and in Muqtada Sadr's Baghdad strongholds, more terrorist attacks and a continued influx of Muslim militants from beyond Iraq. Under these conditions, the elections planned for Iraq in January will either not be held or they will go forward but lack legitimacy because voting will not be able to take place in many Sunni areas in central Iraq, where it's just too dangerous. Either way, there will not be a government that commands sufficient loyalty from Iraqis for its leaders and troops to be accepted and the insurgents to be marginalized. And that means that the United States will continue bearing the brunt of the fighting for years." October 6, 2004

Comparison: Both President Bush and Senator Kerry support military action in Iraq. The main differences are how they view the president's actions in going to war, with the president arguing that Iraq is a central element of the war on terror. Bush stands on his record of coalition building and work with the Iraqi government and people in order to be able to win the war.

Link to Kerry's Iraq brief

Sources:

Frenkel, J. (2004, October 8). PM defiant amid damning WMD report. Herald Sun (Melbourne,Australia). Retrieved October 12, 2004 from LexisNexis Academic Universe.

Khalil, A. and Sanders, E. (2004, October 5). The Conflict in Iraq; Four Car Bombs Kill 20People, Hurt 113; Two of the attacks are in Baghdad, and two in the northern city of Mosul. In Samarra, residents and U.S. officials assess damage after offensive. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from LexisNexis Academic Universe.

Mazzetti, M. (2004, October 11). THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ; Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote; Attacks on Iraq's rebel-held cities will be delayed, officials say. But that could make it harder to allow wider, and more legitimate, Iraqi voting in January. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from LexisNexis Academic Universe.