In an address to the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush stated, "[T]he radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution."
It's quite the hypocritical statement, coming from a man who constantly exploits a local tragedy to propagate for a violent cause, one whose strategic failures are always the faults of others. As the American invasion proves to be more and more consequential, inspiring even former war supporters to jump on the proverbial “let's-get-out-now” bandwagon, the president's porous rationalizations for the Iraq war have been minimized to vague bumper sticker slogans and meaningless axioms. Mr. Bush's reign has metamorphosed into a persistent campaign to rejuvenate dwindling public support for his botched endeavors, requiring that he spend as much time justifying his policy decisions as actually making the decisions themselves.
Mr. Bush's speech last Thursday was fittingly followed by new reports that Iraq's monetary costs now exceed those of Vietnam, proving to be the most expensive military initiative of the past 60 years. The war now foots a $5.9 billion monthly bill — a sum which alone could finance the health care of 46 million citizens or be used to cut world hunger in half; causes which would save more lives than killing every terrorist on earth. The United States’ all-volunteer military remains in dire jeopardy, as the Army and Marines continue to miss recruiting quotas and the war's drastic depletion of the National Guard has become an urgent crisis. American forces are currently incapable of handling another major conflict, whether an international endeavor (all eyes on North Korea and Iran) or a homeland crisis (as the lackluster response to Hurricane Katrina exposed).
By now, America has adapted to having an unjust war gnawing at its moral conscious. It had been able to turn a blind eye to the costs of maintaining an Iraqi presence, until Mother Nature's wrath battered its fragile coasts and exposed individuals to the true meaning of insecurity.
Citizens now realize that there are much more immediate and burning threats to their well-being than elusive terrorist networks. Their post-Sept. 11 hysteria subsiding, they see that they're much more likely to succumb to a lack of food security, housing, and basic necessities than they are to a suicide bomber. They recognize that lapses in the United States’ health-care structure, emergency-response agencies, its social welfare and retirement programs and economic shortfalls present a more danger to national security than bin Laden. They know that national disasters and subjacent poverty present more of a risk than international wars. They realize that it is the irresponsible and opaque actions of administration officials that are detrimental to military personnel, not citizen dissent of damaging policy decisions.
It seems that everyone is rightfully frustrated that Mr. Bush's excessive internationalism leaves scarce government resources available for combating much more immediate dangers. A mere 37 percent of the populous now approve of Mr. Bush's handling of the war. Last Saturday, over 100,000 citizens gathered on the Washington Mall in the largest anti-war demonstration since the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Less than 400 people attended a pro-war rally the following day.
An American withdrawal from Iraq once seemed unfathomable until the horrible predictions cited by war proponents if the United States withdrew began to happen anyway. Iraq has already spiraled into an insurgency-fed civil war, claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens and wounding countless others. It's quite clear that Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, bringing in the influence of Iraq's anti-occupation and anti-American neighbors, Syria and Iran. Indeed, the Pentagon itself has admitted that resistant fighters in Iraq have risen from 5,000 to 20,000 over the past two years. The number of significant international terrorist attacks has doubled since 2003, contradicting allegations that the West is proving victorious in the war on terrorism. American credibility has already been shattered by revelations of the administration's prefabrication and manipulation of evidence sold to citizens and governments before the war. Mr. Bush's refusal to change his policies out of pure arrogance makes it nearly impossible to bolster his coalition forces. Anti-American leaders are bound to inherit Iraq's leadership positions, elected by a populous that is undeniably anti-American, and it's clear that the kind of democracy the United States desires in Iraq — a Jeffersonian prototype in a uniquely religious and tribal society with a history antithetical of Western nations — will not manifest. Now, multiple polls have revealed that a majority of Americans advocate a partial or full withdrawal from the Middle East.
As the war's expenses rapidly amount, calling for a prompt withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is becoming more and more fashionable. Yet it baffles me that the need for a pullout plan is still in question; the discussion should be focused on how exactly to go about it. Exemplifying their leader's stubbornness, many remain blinded to the reality that Iraq's costs far exceed any potential results that could enrich national or international security. The question is: at what point will rationality exceed pride?
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.
