Matt Watson is the opinion editor at The Reflector. He can be contacted at [email protected].At various periods throughout the Bush era, Sept. 11 has been used for justification of the Iraq war.
President Bush has often used the events of that date to strike an emotional cord that sends the vague, often unfounded message that we must continue to fight “the enemy.”
Yet, four-and-a-half years after the invasion, what exactly have we achieved in Iraq? Why should we continue to fight?
That’s the question Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, attempted to answer last week in congressional hearings on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. In essence, they testified that the surge of troops is working and that troop levels will most likely decrease to pre-surge levels by July of next year.
Weeks before these hearings, politicians on both sides of the war geared up their tactics in order to get the most out of Gen. Petraeus.
To Democrats, he was simply Bush’s puppet, a tool to further Bush’s unpopular war. To Republicans, he was one of the most qualified people to provide an on-the-ground analysis.
And we also must remember how Bush set the tone, taking a surprise visit on Sept. 3 to one of the few stable regions in Iraq, the Anbar province, to boast of what the future of Iraq could look like. It marks his third visit to Iraq.
Of course, as Sen. Harry Reid put correctly, this was simply a “massive PR strategy.” It reminded me of Bush’s address from New Orleans two weeks after hurricane Katrina. That event was staged in Jackson Square with lights flown in from Washington. Most of the city was without power.
While I realize that a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq is probably not a good idea, I can’t help but be frustrated, as well as impressed, at the president’s consistent ability to buy more time.
He is now claiming to find middle ground on the Iraq war by beginning a gradual troop reduction, a timetable, if you will. That’s very clever, but in reality, it is not middle ground. By July, the number of soldiers will be back to where it was before the surge.
The current drop of casualties, a result of the surge, is great but still not indicative of stability. We’ve seen the same figures in years past. At this rate, it seems that by July, we will be back to where we were two or three years ago.
In the hearings, Petraeus cited extremely recent statistics covering the past three months and, at times, only the past two weeks. In a war in which casualty numbers fluctuate from year to year yet remain relatively high, does Petraeus’ expert testimony mean anything?
Probably not, although it does indicate a very unpromising future for Iraq.