The Iraq Debate Wash.Post op ed

[jbfam4]

The Iraq Debate
Sunday, September 26, 2004; Page B06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50538-2004Sep25.html?referrer%3Demail

THE PRESIDENTIAL campaign debate on Iraq grew considerably sharper -- and clearer -- over the past week. President Bush and visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi made the case that Iraq is "a central front in the war on terror" and depicted a country that is steadily progressing toward elections and stability, despite what Mr. Bush calls "tough times." Meanwhile, Sen. John F. Kerry adopted, at last, a mostly coherent position on the war, one that describes Iraq as a "profound diversion" from the fight against terrorism and "a mess" that has made the United States less secure. The two candidates differ least on the most immediate question, which is what the United States now should be doing in Iraq. And yet the long-term goals they articulate also are different in subtle but significant ways.



Mr. Kerry's grim description of the "chaos" in Iraq is also more accurate than Mr. Bush's account of "months of steady progress." While there have been political and military gains, Mr. Bush's unrealistic depiction of the "few people" who are trying to disrupt the stabilization of the country is worrisome, since it seems to ignore the formidable resistance forces that U.S. commanders now face. So are his dogged assertions that elections will be held in January, since they come unaccompanied by any explanation of how the serious obstacles to them will be overcome. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry call for the rapid training of Iraqi security forces and speeding of reconstruction projects. But the crucial context is the Bush administration's record of incompetence: Only a tiny fraction of the reconstruction money appropriated by Congress nearly a year ago has been spent in Iraq, while only a few thousand Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained and equipped. While it seems unlikely that Mr. Kerry will succeed in enlisting major new foreign contributions of troops and aid to Iraq, the Bush administration no longer seems even to be trying very hard.


Mr. Kerry has given a clearer choice to those Americans who oppose the Iraq intervention, and he has prodded Mr. Bush into a more forceful commitment to seeing it through. That polarization will suit many on both sides. But for those of us in the center -- who supported the invasion, as we did, but have been dismayed by the Bush administration's performance; or who doubted the wisdom of the war, but now believe it essential that the United States not be driven out of Iraq by insurgents and terrorists -- the choice has become more difficult.

[huckleberry]

1. I get the impression that the WP is leaning towards

endorsing Kerry!!

[Vincardog]

2. Who supported the invasion? I knew it was the first step on the slippery

slope from day one.

[hansolsen]

3. The WP was pro war from day one, led the way on WMD stories, and

rolled out a red carpet for Bush all the way to Baghdad. Anything the editors and publishers of the WP have to say about Iraq now has about as much credibilty as Robert MacNamara and Henry Kissinger on Vietnam.

The editors and publishers of the WP see the war in Iraq as the war to make the middle east safe for Israel, which is a noble goal. The trouble is the war in Iraq is doing just the opposite, and the old fools in high places at the WP are reluctant to admit their mistake and move on.