Last week marked the first anniversary of George W. Bush's famous announcement that active combat in Iraq had ended with a "mission accomplished." But as ongoing events in Iraq show every day, the outrageous thing about that photo-op wasn't Bush's "Top Gun" landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, or the White House's effort to take credit for the prowess and courage of U.S. military forces: It was the premature declaration of the end of hostilities.
We remain at war in Iraq. This isn't a "mopping up" operation. U.S. casualties during the last few months have been persistently higher than during the military campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. Nor does this phase of the conflict represent a "reconstruction" of Iraq. A fundamental lack of security has greatly thwarted reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure, as unhappy Iraqis emphatically report in a disturbing new public opinion poll recently conducted by the Gallup organization.
The president, most recently in last month's primetime press conference, has repeatedly and rightfully expressed a calm resolve to get the job done in Iraq and turn the country over to a stable and at least quasi-democratic government. But it's increasingly clear he doesn't really know what the job involves, or how to accomplish it. Administration policy on Iraq in recent weeks has been a pageant of irresolution, improvisation, and now, apparently, panic. The constantly changing strategy for subduing the Sunni insurgency in Fallujah and the indecision (following much tough talk) about how to deal with the Shiite extremist Sadr are but the most visible examples of disarray.
Moreover, the sense that nobody in particular is in charge of U.S. policy in Iraq has been painfully amplified by the global dissemination of photos of American troops torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. This isolated outrage, which all Americans condemn, is but a pale shadow of the systematically barbaric behavior of Iraqi insurgents, who kill unarmed civilians and "collaborators" every day as a matter of deliberate policy. But it's hard to place these events in any kind of proper context given the overall drift of U.S. leadership in Washington.
As we warned last month, the president seems to think it somebody else's job to figure out what, exactly, to do in Iraq. It's the job of the United Nations to plan and execute the political transition to an Iraqi-led government, due in less than two months. And it's the job of U.S. commanders on the ground to figure out how to fight insurgents and bring order to the country. The commander-in-chief is apparently no more than the rhetoretician-in-chief.
Meanwhile, in remarks on the first anniversary of the "mission accomplished" declaration, Mr. Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry, laid out a three-part plan for Iraq that includes: (1) appointment of an internationally-sanctioned high commissioner to "work with Iraqi authorities on the political transition;" (2) creation of an "expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under U.S. command;" and (3) "a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people."
Kerry's proposal makes abundant good sense, but as he acknowledged, U.S. forces will bear the burden of quelling violence in the short run. "We must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq," he said. "That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission."
In other words, now, today, U.S. forces in Iraq need clear and decisive leadership. But the president who promised to usher in "a responsibility era" won't accept responsibility for dangerously underestimating what it would take to secure Iraq after Saddam Hussein was deposed, and for failing to give brave U.S. troops the direction and support they need to accomplish their mission and come home.
