Having already sacrificed its international and domestic political effectiveness to prolong the ill-fated war in Iraq, the White House now stands poised to throw more money at the problem. The ethical and strategic costs of the war in Iraq have always been too great to bear, but the ever-increasing financial costs imperil future American economic solvency.
The last few days have brought a flurry of tense words between the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. At a press conference earlier this week, Bush lamented the ongoing violence, strife, and sectarianism and then pointed the finger quite directly at Mr. Maliki suggesting that the real question in all this mess is "will the Iraqi government respond to the demands of the people?" U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker was even harsher; phrases like "extremely disappointed" and "our support is not a blank check" tumbled from his mouth with a dire tone not heard from the administration before. Mr. Maliki registered his offense at the words (if politely, given his precarious position), noting he found them "discourteous."
Back in 2000, Hillary Clinton spent months on a “listening tour” of New York State, convincing voters she wanted to be, not their boss, but their responsive public servant. Letting the world know who’s boss has been the persistent theme of President George W. Bush’s failed foreign policy. To begin to repair the resulting damage, a global listening tour is in order for him.
While the American people are seeking a way to bring the troops home from Iraq, the President and his administration are aiming to stay for much longer by redefining “victory” in Iraq once again—this time as a permanent occupier. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters on June first this year that he favors a mutual agreement with Iraq in which “some force of Americans…is present for a protracted period of time….” Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, in charge of daily military operations in Iraq, supported this idea, comparing our involvement in Iraq to our continued military presence in South Korea. This type of “victory” was not what America signed up for as Bush led the nation to war. But even worse, this victory isn’t even realistic.
On May 2, President George W. Bush addressed the Associated General Contractors of America at the Willard Hotel in Washington. An appropriate venue: in the 19th century, favor-seekers waited in the hotel’s lobby for politicians to drop by after work. Thereafter, they were known as lobbyists.
The showdown over Iraq that’s been brewing since the November elections will finally come to a head this week as Congress sends a war-spending bill to President Bush. Though the bill authorizes $100 billion for the war, Bush has rejected its October deadline for beginning the withdrawal of combat troops, with the goal of bringing combat troops home by April 2008, and has promised to use his veto—his second-ever use of this power—to kill it.
The American electorate spoke out in no uncertain terms, saying that they do not want permanent war. Nor will they accept the Bush administration’s mantra of terrorism that has cavalierly torn at the very fabric of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.
The transfer of current U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad from his job as the Great Wizard of Iraq’s embattled Emerald City in Baghdad’s Green Zone, to the quieter but no less complicated halls of the United Nations, may have several rationales.
The scene inside the Capitol tonight for this annual occasion will be more surreal than usual. The leader who has led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in our history will stride punctually into the chamber, bathed in thunderous, ritual applause.
Boots from the American Friends Service Committee project Eyes Wide Open, a traveling exhibition on the costs of the Iraq War. Photo by Jochen Strack.