TERROR AND IRAQ

It is not surprising that President George W. Bush Tuesday tied the war in Iraq to the larger war on terrorism. The former is becoming increasingly unpopular at home, while support for the war on terrorism remains stronger. The problem, how-ever, is that Iraq had no connections to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. So, when the president says that Iraq has become “a central front in the war on terror,” this is a consequence of the U.S.-led invasion not a justification for it.

The public and Congress must see through this circular reasoning and, instead of lofty rhetoric about spreading democracy, expect real evidence that Iraq is making progress toward governing and defending itself and when that progress is sufficient, that U.S. troops will start coming home.

In a recent Washington Post poll, 51 percent of Americans said invading Iraq was a mistake. Last April, 52 percent said going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. In April 2003, 81 percent thought so.

According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday, 55 percent of respondents approved of the president’s handling of the war on terrorism.

So, it is no wonder that the president mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks five times during his half-hour speech at Fort Bragg, N.C. However, the 9-11 Commission found that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks. The president’s second justification for the war – that Mr. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction – was also disproved.

Having involved the United States in protracted war, which spreads U.S. forces too thin and hinders recruiting efforts for the Army and National Guard, the president tried to convince the increasingly skeptical American public that the Iraq war is “worth it.”

It is worth it, he told his audience of 800 U.S. soldiers, because America must hunt down and kill terrorists before they attack us again. “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war,” President Bush said. He said that hundreds of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Sudan had been captured or killed in Iraq.

What he did not say is that these foreign fighters were not in Iraq before the U.S. invasion or that early failures, such as insufficient forces and inadequate preparation for the postwar occupation, allowed these fighters to flood into Iraq.

To end this, Mr. Bush cited three new steps the United States was taking. He said coalition troops and Iraqi units would conduct operations together in the field. Second, he said Iraqi and coalition troops would live, work and fight together with coalition forces teaching urban combat, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques. Lastly, the president said coalition members were working with Iraqi ministries on leadership training and anti-terrorism operations.

More than two years after the president declared “Mission Accomplished” aboard an aircraft carrier and one year after the hand-over of sovereignty to Iraqi officials, it is hard to believe that these efforts have not been on-going for some time. U.S. military officials say they have, leaving the question of why the president thinks they signify a new direction.

The president is right that the United States must remain in Iraq for a long time to come. He must, however, do a better job of explaining why based on reality, not fictitious connections.