COLUMN: Pres. Bush owes us a reason to believe him
On Sept. 7, President Bush appeared in a televised speech before the nation. This was the first time, since triumphantly declaring an end to “major combat operations” last May, that the president addressed the nation on the situation in Iraq. This was a different speech, somber and without much fanfare, urging the Americans and the civilized world “to stay the course” and trust his leadership.
The speech came at a time when the president seems to have lost his grip on the conflicts abroad and problems at home. That quagmire, which is Iraq, is becoming more and more cumbersome and dangerous to handle. American and British soldiers are being killed almost daily. The humanitarian organizations are leaving in droves after the recent suicide bombing at the United Nations’ headquarters in Baghdad, and the Shiite population is still seething after the killing of their leader together with more than 100 other worshipers just a week ago during yet another suicide bombing. Saddam Hussein has proven elusive, despite a generous bounty on his head and countless Allied soldiers on his trail. And to top it all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. At least, not yet.
As if the situation in Iraq were not precarious enough, the Taliban has renewed its efforts to reclaim control of Afghanistan. Kandahar has once again become the center of their activity, with new fighters joining them every day. More troops will most likely be needed there very soon, creating more demands on an already-spread-thin U.S. military. The road map, the president’s vision for a peaceful solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis, seems also to be in shambles after Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister resigned last Saturday and Israel turned up the heat on both the political and military leaders of Hamas and other Islamic organizations by “marking them for death.” So much for a productive foreign policy.
What exactly does Bush plan to do to make sure Pandora’s box doesn’t stay wide open? First, the president announced that the United States intended to stay in Iraq for as long as it would take. In line with such a policy, the Department of Defense announced the extension of the tour of duty of thousands of reserves and National Guard members to a year. The commitment to stay in Iraq for the long haul is encouraging and must be applauded. A premature departure from Iraq would only put the U.S. interests in the region at jeopardy and make the situation more dangerous than before the overthrow of Hussein. Whereas there is a clear need to successfully complete the Iraqi political and infrastructural reconstruction, the administration needs to also present a realistic exit strategy, to reassure the American people that Iraq will not become another political and military swamp.
It was also encouraging to hear the president appeal to the European allies and U.N. Security Council members for a greater involvement in Iraq. Their quest for assistance marked an unprecedented U-turn in the administration’s policy and underlined the administration’s own bleak perspective of the situation in Iraq. Hopefully, the president’s shift in policy is not too little, too late, as France, Germany and Russia contemplate whether they should “punish, ignore or forgive” the United States for the high-handed manner with which it treated the United Nations during the pre-war debate.
The president also told the American public, that the war on terror would require another $87 billion for the next fiscal year, which is three to four times more than was projected earlier this year. Such a request for more funding comes at a time when the federal budget deficit nears a record $500 billion and the U.S. economy is experiencing a “jobless” recovery. Whereas funding is needed to support the troops abroad, the administration is blurry on details and at best unclear about a timetable on the U.S. commitment in Iraq.
On Sept. 7, the president asked us to believe in him and his ability to lead the country out of recession and into prosperity. Such pleas come at a time when the majority of the American voters, according to a recent Zogby poll, would rather see someone else in the White House in January 2005. The recent frantic fundraisers and visits to electorally sensitive states signal the president’s intention not to take for granted his re-election. I submit, that we shouldn’t either.
Medlir Mema is a senior in political science. Comments can be sent to medlirm@cc.usu.edu.