War in Iraq: broken promises and accountability

Contrary to the hopes expressed in my last editorial on Iraq, things have gone from bad to worse. The successful downing of several American helicopters, detonation of American G.I.'s and repeated attacks on coalition headquarters have shown that while our enemy in Iraq is growing bolder as well as stronger. The administration has also changed its tune on Iraq, shifting its unofficial stance from "Mission Accomplished" (President Bush in May) to "a long, hard slog" (Secretary Rumsfeld, October). While it is still premature to categorize our efforts in Iraq as a failure, there seems to be a growing disconnect between all the stated reasons (or even implied reasons) for our effort in Iraq and the actual results of the conflict. Surprisingly, this has brought little condemnation from President Bush's political opponents, and even less from the American people. While Iraq may not be anything close to the scale of Vietnam, society's complicity in incompetent policies leading to the death of American servicemen is what caused such a virulent reaction to our failure thirty years ago, and history may yet repeat itself. Americans need to step out of the silence and demand creative solutions to the problems we face in Iraq, or they are likely to never evolve.

The most troubling aspect of our current situation in Iraq is that none of the reasons we were supposed to be there are turning out to have any type of relationship to the situation on the ground. While I argued for months that the weapons of mass destruction threat was not itself enough to invade, there were many other reasons that a war in Iraq might be good for America's standing in the world. First, it would disprove the prevailing opinion in the Arab world that we intentionally left Saddam Hussein in power to keep his tyranny as a stabilizer in the region. Next, it would free a people from Hussein's iron grip, partially repaying the Kurds we so callously abandoned after the first Gulf War. Most enticing was the notion that a free and democratic Iraq would start a chain-reaction across the Middle East and topple the corrupt governments in the region, bringing self-determination and security to the entire area.

However, none of these have happened. Obviously, we found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, giving our political adversaries a good excuse to ridicule us and sabotage our subsequent efforts to get international assistance in our efforts. Our security has not been improved, as we have opened up a perfect opportunity for every religious zealot, Baathist, or random American-hater to take potshots at our kids over there. They are hitting their marks with alarming frequency. The "humanitarian" spin is also failing, as Islamic organizations and the Iraqi people themselves have condemned our continuing presence there and want us out as soon as they can convince us to go. International organizations such as the United Nations and Red Cross have already pulled their foreign staff from the country, and with every desertion it becomes harder and harder to bring relief. Finally, and most disappointingly, our stance towards the rest of the Middle Eastern governments has not changed because of the Iraq conflict, and the upwelling of democratic revolution is nowhere to be found. Despite all the rosy predictions, the Middle Eastern "domino theory" has proved to be no truer than the one that led us into a small Communist nation forty years ago.

Enough will the failures. We cannot pull out of Iraq because that will show the world we have no resolve to see our initiatives through, and will further embolden our enemies and lead them to use violence to accomplish their goals. What we need from our administration is creative new solutions to the problems we face in Iraq, and we need them now. Our routes in Iraq are so predictable that roadside bombs can be placed to ambush our convoys with no little risk to the attackers. This must change immediately. The reported brutality of American searches and arrests is also disheartening, and should be combated vigorously. An intense "Iraq-ization" of security forces sounds like the most promising strategy, to show America is willing to turn over control to Iraqis, and lessening the number of Americans who can be targeted by terrorists. However, it is not up to the layman to determine the specific course of action in Iraq – that is up to the administration. We need no more reassurance from our leaders, because "staying the course" is no use when the "course" is leading us towards disaster. Slowly the uneasy silence brought about by wartime unity will wear off, and the slick veneer of the administration may go with it. While it has been largely suspended since September 11th, accountability will eventually reappear on the political landscape. The administration's decisions in Iraq between now and then will have a determining effect on its success, as well as our standing in the world community. There is one year left to turn things around, and the clock is ticking.

David Sillers is a politics major from Potomac, Md.