Bush Iraq Justification

The President yesterday passionately defended our continued presence in Iraq using the same arguments that he seems to grasp every time he appears in public, looking more and more like a man being deserted on all sides.

Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying.

What is utterly lacking is any intellectual understanding of why we are in the position we are in, how we got there, and what our strategy is to get out. If he ever apologized to the American people for having misread pre-war intelligence and for having botched the war’s aftermath and if he were to admit that conditions on the ground are deteriorating monthly and that Iraq is in the start-up phase of a Civil War, there might be hope for a constructive debate on what we do next. Admitting fault and arguing that we are a main cause of the distressing situation engulfing Iraq today, and therefore, we have a responsibility to rectify our mistakes might be a defensible position. But all he can manage is that it is better to fight terrorists over there rather than here. Since he and the Administration won’t face reality, there is little choice but to accept the Clinton administration ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith’s recent assessment:

"You have a government that isn't a government, a nation that isn't a nation," said Galbraith, His answer: withdrawal. "If we do what I recommend, there will be horrific sectarian cleansing in the mixed areas, particularly in Baghdad, and civil war," he said. "If we stay the course, there will be horrific sectarian cleansing in Baghdad, and civil war."