By Robert Nolan
Though Pentagon officials have called it militarily insignificant, the arrival of the 2,000th American death in Iraq this week has injected new life into the U.S. debate over the future of the war-torn country. While many hailed last week's approval of the interim constitution as a victory for democracy, some worry that mounting casualties and a potential political scandal at the White House could undermine recent gains.
A real milestone?
Headlines across the country this week announced the American military death toll in Iraq as it exceeded 2,000, and many news organizations used what the New York Times called a “Grim Mark” to honor the fallen. The publication of soldiers' letters home, obituaries and informational graphics outlining American casualties indicated U.S. sacrifices in the mission to overthrow Saddam Hussein and implement democracy in the heart of the Middle East had reached a milestone.
From a military perspective, however, the Pentagon and many defense analysts disagree. According to Editor and Publisher's Web site, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said in an email to reporters that, “The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone,” adding, “It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and their own ulterior motives.”
A number of defense analysts have also indicated the number should be taken into context. “Rather than look at the number being 2,000, you should consider the fact that the casualty rate has remained relatively stable even as the adversary has gained in strength and cleverness,” said the Lexington Institute's Dan Goure, a former Reagan defense official, in a Council on Foreign Relations report. “That, added to the successful passage of a new constitution, implies that progress is being made.”
Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the U.S. administration is making that case to the American public, which, according to Ohio State University Professor John Mueller, is increasingly subject to “Iraq syndrome.” Measuring American tolerance for casualties in past conflicts in Korea and Vietnam in the journal Foreign Affairs, Mueller writes that, “The most striking thing about the comparison among the three wars is how much more quickly support has eroded in the case of Iraq.” Mueller suggests the lower tolerance for U.S. deaths “is largely due to the fact that the American public places far less value in Iraq than it did on those in Korea and Vietnam. The main threats Iraq was thought to present to the United States when troops went in – weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism – have been, to say the least, discounted.” The result, says Mueller, is that Iraq has become “something of a humanitarian venture.”
Declining public support for the U.S. project in Iraq was also compounded this week by a report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The British think-tank indicated a significant number of U.S. forces would be needed in Iraq for at least the next five years -- well into the first term of the next administration.
A small victory for democracy
Despite the Pentagon's disregard of the 2,000-casualty mark, administration officials have sought to outline plans to “assure victory” in Iraq. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, appearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, offered the administration's three-point plan to “clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions.”
The third objective received a big boost last week as Iraqis voted to approve a constitution that, according to President Bush, “guarantees fundamental freedoms and lays the foundation for lasting democracy.” Speaking at Bolling Air Force Base this week, Bush praised the constitution's passage. “By any standard or precedent in history, Iraq has made incredible political progress – from tyranny to liberation, to national elections, to the ratification of a constitution – in the space of two and a half years.”
While some warn the narrow ‘yes' vote could further split Iraq along ethnic lines – the number of ‘no' votes in three Sunni dominated governorates nearly prevented the constitution from passing – others see increased participation as a sign the seeds of democracy are beginning to take root. “Although many Sunnis voted against the constitution, they have the incentive to participate in the upcoming elections in December because the next assembly will select the next government,” said Zalmay Khalizad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, in an online “chat” on the White House Web site. “This participation in the political process can help separate them from the terrorists and Saddamists who do not want Sunni participation and are advocates for civil war.”
Plame Game
Following the vote, some analysts pointed to a somewhat subdued response from a White House known for using political milestones in Iraq to bolster its policies. “Typically, the Bush administration could have been expected to seize on the approval of the constitution as a showcase of a foreign policy success, reiterating claims that Iraq is on its way to becoming a viable democracy – and picking up valuable approval points in U.S. polls along the way,” write the analysts at Stratfor.com.
The “short shrift” given to the issue by the president, says Stratfor.com, is likely due to the Bush administration's preoccupation with what has come to be known as “Plamegate,” -- the alleged White House leak of a CIA agent's name to the press -- as well as a fear of issuing “any statements that could be interpreted as declaring victory in Iraq.”
Furthermore, the playing out of the Plame affair -- indictments could come this week --and recent events in Iraq have reopened many old wounds incurred during the build-up to war. A number of former Republican officials, including former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson and State Department official Robin Raphael, have become vocal critics of U.S. policy in Iraq -- particularly the role of the White House in the march to Baghdad – further undermining a politically weakened White House.
Additional pressure, says The Economist, can be expected from a rabid press corps. “There is a noticeable mood of shame in the Washington press corps: shame that it failed to ask tough questions about weapons of mass destruction; shame that it was not quick enough to dig into the murky world of lobbying; shame that it was used to smear critics of the Iraq war,” writes the author behind the popular Lexington column. “That shame is congealing into a desire for revenge. The press will be asking a lot more hard questions -- and this time it will find eager sources among disillusioned conservatives.
Indeed, in an interview with the New Yorker, Scowcroft, who served as National Security Advisor to George H.W. Bush, compared the current situation in Iraq to the American fallout in Vietnam. “This was a very bitter period, and it turned us against foreign policy adventures deeply. This is not that deep, but we're moving in that direction,” said the champion of so-called “realist” foreign policy. “Now will we win? I think there is a fair chance we will win. But look at the cost.”
The president, however, has maintained his resolve. Speaking just before the 2,000th U.S. casualty in Iraq, Bush told the wives of armed forces officers the best way to honor the fallen “is to complete the mission and lay the foundation for spreading peace and freedom.”
“In Iraq,” he said. “There is no peace without victory.”
