It will be five years ago next week that Vice President Dick Cheney launched the United States on a catastrophic path to war in Iraq in a speech Aug. 26, 2002, to the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, Tenn.

During his talk, Cheney set up a number of rhetorical arguments why we should not go to war in Iraq and proceeded to knock them down one by one. Twisting facts, making misleading comments (“We will proceed with care, deliberation and consultation with allies”) and indulging in reckless prediction (the streets “will erupt in joy”), Cheney basically laid out the case for “pre-emptive war” against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. And the rest is history.

Cheney’s war – also known as Bush’s war, Rumsfeld’s war, the neo-conservatives’ “cakewalk” that has now lasted longer than World War II, – has done the following:

. Squandered American power and respect in the world.

. Distracted the United States and the world from the true causes and culprits of terror; allowing al Qaida and terrorist networks to become stronger, not weaker.

. Devoted more than $1 trillion to invading a country that, despite Cheney’s assurances, did not have nuclear weapons and did not have close links to terror networks.

. Plunged the United States into one constitutional crisis after another – often by Cheney’s manipulation and defiance of the constitution and the Congress.

. Done untold damage to our military forces – before Iraq considered the most powerful and effective in the world and

. Sadly, led to the deaths of 3,674 Americans (severe injuries to thousands more) and to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

And how has this happened? It happened in large part because the last two presidential elections put into power two men who lack a sense of strategic leadership, who often defined the national interest as their own political agendas, who declared “a war on terror” but went to war against a country that, at the time, did not constitute a serious threat and did not have many terrorists in it.

The first, Bush, who calls himself “the decider,” is largely a man in perpetual motion with much in the way of broad convictions but little vision or knowledge about the way the world works. The second, Cheney, is a consummate micro-manager who has been the chief “framer” of decisions, a skilled operational tactician but not much of a strategic thinker despite his many years in government.

Several observers say Cheney has become a shadow president. But The Washington Post had it about right. Two Post reporters wrote a well-documented, if belated series in June concluding that Cheney has become the most powerful vice president in history – even bypassing the president on some economic decisions, but clever enough to stay behind the scenes, if only to allow him more influence and less accountability.

Cheney, to my mind, has been “president for national security,” dominating decision-making on virtually all important international issues from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East, to terrorism and energy, while Bush has fulfilled the presidential function on more domestic issues, and served as chairman of the board when broad decisions had to be reached.

The problem is the two of them have made so many bad decisions that the country is less secure and less respected. Together, they have torn up the constitution and international law (defending torture, secret prisons and warrantless spying on Americans), severely damaged the interagency process and governed by inducing fear rather than the confidence that this country should have. The lack of long-term, strategic thought and planning of this administration will require historical investigation. For instance, the disaster in Iraq has empowered and emboldened the country we should have been most concerned about, Iran; it has diverted needed resources from rebuilding Afghanistan, and now the Taliban are a renewed threat.

As for Cheney’s role, it will take some time to sort out how a man with such experience and knowledge of government proved to be the principal architect of the degradation of American power and influence in the world.

At the time he became the vice president, the choice was welcomed because he had been a competent chief of staff in the Ford White House and served capably as Secretary of Defense under Bush I. With Bush II’s scant experience in foreign affairs, Cheney would be a needed, responsible adviser.

But close observers say he never has shrugged off an essentially isolationist streak that morphed into unilateralism. He harbored deep grudges against Colin Powell from the first Bush presidency, believing Powell, then Joints Chief chairman, got undeserved credit for Desert Storm’s success when Powell originally opposed the drive into Kuwait.

One Washington veteran sees Cheney’s rise as a direct byproduct of Bush’s weakness, the elected president’s own inability to take seriously his oath as commander in chief. But he also faults Cheney’s failures. “The tragedy of the Bush administration,” according to this view, “is that an extraordinarily smart, savvy operator did not employ his brain power and natural skepticism to dig deeply into what he was being told about Iraq.”

Bush and Cheney have little more than one year in office to restore some of the credibility this country has lost, and to set a more promising stage for the next administration, Republican or Democratic. Short of a miracle in Iraq (and this observer does not support a rapid withdrawal), one way to start would be for Bush, with Cheney by his side, to give a speech which admits that the war in Iraq, if not a grave misjudgment as so many of us believe, turned out to be a surprisingly complex undertaking that needs broad international support to repair. And Bush can quote Talleyrand if he does not want to admit it himself: “It is worse than a crime; it is a blunder.”

Fred Hill, a foreign correspondent for The Baltimore Sun, later worked on national security issues for the State Department in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations. He can be reached at hill207@juno.com.