The Case Against Bush (IRAQ)
Andrew Sullivan sees through the rose-tinted fog of war :
The reason I believe things are dire in Iraq is pretty simple. The evidence is accumulating that the insurgency - fostered by Baathist thugs, al Qaeda murderers, and other Jihadists - is gaining traction. That would be a manageable problem if the population despised them and saw a way through to a better society. But the disorder and mayhem continues to delegitimize the Iraqi government and, by inference, the coalition occupation. And the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. to seal the borders or effectively counter the terror contributes to the general view that the insurgents are going to win, and therefore the notion that the U.S.-led liberation may make matters even worse than they were before. And this is a vicious cycle. In other words, one reason the insurgency is spreading is because it has tacit support or merely passive acceptance among the general population. And once the general population turns against an occupying power, then things get really … Algerian. The key moment was probably when George W. Bush blinked in Fallujah. That was when the general population inferred that we were not prepared to win. It’s amazing, really. This president has a reputation for toughness and resolution. Yet at arguably the most critical moment in this war, he gave in. He was for taking Fallujah before he was against it. I cannot believe the situation is beyond rescue. But this president’s policies have made it much much more difficult than it might have been. Elections are now more vital than ever - because they are the sole means of gaining the advantage in the legitimacy stakes. With those must come a relentless guerrilla war against the enemy, a massive increase in troop levels (whether Iraqi or America), and a huge effort for reconstruction. But we have thrown away a year’s worth of opportunity. By incompetence and lack of will.
I still think that the best case against Bush’s performance in Iraq was John Kerry’s speech from a week and a half ago. If even half of the charges from that speech make it into tonight’s debate, Bush will (or at least should) be in trouble.
2 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Maybe you could tell me how the world is safer without Saddam Hussein? Is Iraq safer? How about Iran or Pakistan? Is Sudan Safer? Spain, Russia, Australia? Is the Antarctic even safer?
Who is safer because Saddam is in jail than they were before?
I just can’t think of anybody, can you?
Comment by grannyinsanity — September 30, 2004 @ 11:10 pm
An almost intelligent post from Andrew Sullivan. Tell us, Andrew, what would you have done in Fallujah? Yes, Bush failed the crucial test; he just didn’t have it in him to order the obliteration of an entire city. That isn’t when Bush lost the war (or the peace, or whatever we’re supposed to call it), he lost the war when he led us into it. Because there is no fucking way to win this war.
Comment by Joe — October 1, 2004 @ 11:24 am