Misperceptions on the war ( Dem errs from Dem leaning Brookings Inst.)

[papau]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031104-102039-6240r.htm

Misperceptions on the war


By Michael O''Hanlon



The Democratic Party as a whole, and most of its presidential candidates, are making three consistent mistakes in their otherwise generally fair critiques of Bush administration policy in Iraq….The first mistake is to argue that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were not a serious concern before the war. The second is that somehow Bush administration unilateralism has been the principal cause of our current problems on the ground in Iraq. And the third is the assumption, explicit or implicit, that the Iraq mission will remain just as difficult as it is today right through general election time next year.

On the weapons of mass destruction issue, Democrats are right that the administration hyped the threat before going to war. But the party must remember that virtually everyone — in the United States, the U.N. system, Europe, former Clinton administration ranks and elsewhere — believed Saddam Hussein still had chemical and biological weapons given his track record on the subject. If Saddam had wanted to prove us wrong, he could have verifiably accounted for all the materials he had imported over the years — materials that had no other credible purpose except to manufacture chemical or biological agents. Since he did not, and since he had a track record of both hiding and using such arms, it was reasonable to be worried….. This is not to say that President Bush chose the right moment for war, or that his unilateralism was necessary. But the basic logic of requiring Saddam to verifiably disarm or be disarmed was reasonable. <snip>

…Democrats implicitly assume that Iraq will still be as big a national problem come election time next fall. That assumption is probably wrong. For one thing, a number of trends in Iraq today — in the education and health sectors, in electricity levels, in availability of fuels for cooking and heating, and in market activity — are more positive than commonly appreciated.

Perhaps most crucially, U.S. troops in Iraq will almost surely be fewer in number — and less exposed to attack — come next fall. Although there will not yet be a strong Iraqi army to replace the U.S.-led coalition, there will be an Iraqi police force that has taken over most patrolling and routine beat-walking duties in major Iraqi cities. Already, 55,000 such police are on the streets, and the number will double within a year. That should permit U.S. troop levels in Iraq to decline by about half and reduce American casualties at least as much. <snip>

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "Clinton's Strong Defense Legacy" in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.