Bush Administration Policy in Iraq

by Bill Creasy

This essay was written in August 2003, for the September 2003 issue of WASHline. It is reproduced without editing.

The military campaign to conquer and occupy Iraq is over, and it was over quickly. Although President Bush has declared the war to be over, the Iraqis may disagree. The current phase, which is either the peace-keeping, a guerilla war, or an occupation, depending who you ask, has just begun. It will cost the American government a remarkable $1 billion a week, most of which will probably come from taxes.

During the military campaign, there was little criticism about the motives of the Bush Administration in starting the war by American media. Perhaps this silence was out of respect for the U.S. armed forces and on the chance that the administration had secret information or an undisclosed motive for the war. The grace period seems to be over. It now appears that there isn't any new secret information, and there are serious questions about the evidence that Bush used as justification for the war.

Even though the military conquest of Iraq went well, the occupation seems to have been unanticipated. At the beginning of the war, the Bush Administration expected to have most of the troops home in a few months, but now they say the troops may be there indefinitely. Looting was rampant, including theft of irreplacable museum artifacts. Apparently, not enough thought was given to keeping order in Iraq after the fighting was over. Americans are still being killed by hostile Iraqis. It remains to be seen whether this hostility will reach the levels that were seen in Vietnam, or whether Muslim fundamentalists who are friendly to the Iranian clerics will gain influence.

A major rationale for the war was to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. No actual chemical or biological weapons have been found, which is eroding the credibility of the prewar U.S. intelligence information and American motives. A recent article about Gen. Tommy Franks indicates that there may have been a motivation for the war by Bush that has not been closely examined. One surprise (to civilians) about the military phase of the Iraqi war was the great effectiveness and accuracy of the smart bombs and missiles. Unlike the Gulf War in 1991, these munitions could be targeted so quickly and accurately that they were used to destroy enemy troop formations before the troops could move. The weapons were very effective in supporting the advancing ground troops.

Newsweek published an article, "The Education of Tommy Franks" [May 19, 2003, pp. 24-29] based on interviews with Gen. Franks, the commander in charge of the Iraqi war. The article states that, during the earlier Afghanistan campaign, it was found by the military that "precision bombing and better communications allowed ground forces to call in air power with devastating effect." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "loved that." Further, "as soon as Al Quada was routed from its Afghan sanctuary, President Bush was determined to show off American power by taking out Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction." Rumsfeld consulted Gen. Franks, who "did not need to be pursuaded to come up with a leaner, more up-to-date plan that took advantage of new technology."

These statements indicate that one reason for the Iraqi war was the improved technology. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Franks knew how effective the smart bombs were, and they concluded that the technology would make the Iraq war significantly easier than the Gulf War had been. The weapons provided an unprecedented ability to "decapitate" a country's government by selectively destroying the government and military facilities and personnel.

But did the better military technology cause the Bush Administration to underestimate the difficulty of reestablishing a new Iraqi government? Even if it is easier to chop off a head, it is no simpler to grow a new one. Before the war started, the Administration officials were saying that the occupation would be short, even 3-6 months. Now, the occupation is projected to be at least 4 years, and at most indefinitely. Did the ease of the military conquest cause them to grossly underestimate the time for the occupation?

Therefore, at least part of the answer to the question, "Why did Bush go to war?" seems to be because the technology made it fast and relatively low in casualties. We can only speculate about Bush's other political or personal motives, but that's another question. Perhaps he was most concerned with avoiding another terrorist incident like 9/11, but his rationale and his choice of priorities has not been well explained.

The Founding Fathers realized the danger of a standing military force even in the young United States. The danger is that the leaders of the government would be tempted to use military force as a first resort rather than a last resort. Improved smart bomb technology, which greatly reduces the risk to our troops, may make that temptation even greater.

Is the war justifiable regardless of the questionable motives and apparent poor planning? Certainly, removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good accomplishment. No one can argue that the world was better with him in power. But the war was basically unprovoked. There is no evidence that he had imminent plans to encourage terrorist actions against the U.S. or that he supported Al Queda. There is evidence, on the other hand, that the Iraqi war was counterproductive in the goal of preventing terrorism. It alienated the U.N. and Muslim countries who were previously sympathetic toward the U.S. The war also gave the North Koreans an excuse to resume their development of nuclear weapons to defend themselves from possible attack.

It is tempting to argue that the U.S. is justified in having a humanistic and humanitarian goal of making the world a better place by deposing Saddam, as well as any other oppressive dictator. But shouldn't the U. S. have a more pragmatic and long-term strategy before committing American troops and risking lives, both Iraqi and American, before forcibly overthrowing a government and invading a foreign land? Shouldn't we anticipate what we are going to do with a country once we have it?

Removing a government gives the U.S. a great responsibility to keep order, provide services, and help establish a new, viable government. Bush has still done a poor job of explaining how this responsibility will be handled or paid for. He has not expressed a serious, long-term commitment by the U.S. for this responsibility. There is no policy to cooperate with the U.N. or other countries to accomplish the goal.

This lack of a clear policy will come up again. Already, there is speculation about where Bush will declare the next war and what pretext will be used to start it. Without a morally or legally defensible reason for this war, the U.S. is in danger of losing any world respect and leadership.