The war at four: Happy talk at the White House, unhappy reality in Iraq

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So this -- March 19-20 -- is the four-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. And how far we've come. I was a supporter of the war, if a reluctant one, but it didn't take long for me to turn against it. I welcomed the overthrow of Saddam's despicable regime, but the gross mismanagement of the war by the warmongers became apparent rather quickly. And I don't have much to add today. We address the war day in and day out here at The Reaction, and our views are clear. The war has been a disaster.

But what did Bush have to say?

He spoke at the White House -- all happy talk about how "the world is rid of Saddam Hussein" and about how "our most important mission is helping the Iraqis secure their capital," that is, about how "Iraq's government is carrying out an aggressive plan to secure Baghdad" and about how "we're continuing to train the Iraqi security forces so that they ultimately take full responsibility for the security of their own people". He said that "the Baghdad security plan is still in its early stages, and success will take months, not days or weeks," and he admitted that "there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds". It was a better speech than many of his lame efforts to defend the indefensible, and yet the optimism is not reasonably cautious but, as usual, unreasonably delusional: "Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through."

What does that even mean? -- courage? resolve? Four years into the war, the only concrete progress seems to be the entirely false successes, however dubious, of the surge in Baghdad. What of the rest of the country? What of Baghdad post-surge? A torrent of sectarianism has been unleashed by this war? Does Bush seriously think that a security effort in Baghdad will solve that problem?

Perhaps he does. What is certain is that he intends for the Iraq War to go on indefinitely -- there may be many anniversaries yet to come. He speaks of months, but months soon become years. It will likely take the next president -- if that president is a Democrat, less likely if he (because not she) is a Republican -- to undo what Bush has done.

And so, on the four-year anniversary of the start of his war, Bush asks for patience, for time, plays the fear card, arguing that withdrawing from Iraq would prove far worse than staying, as if that argument can be proven, despite all the evidence against it, and requests, nay, demands another $100 billion in emergency funding "without strings and without delay".

But what has Bush done to deserve the trust of the American people, or the trust of any people? What has he done to deserve patience, time, and so much more money for a war of his own choosing, devising, and manipulating that has turned into such a disaster?

Nothing. And yet the war goes on. And there isn't a damn thing we can do to stop it until -- until the wrongs of 2000 and 2004 are rectified, at least in part, a small part, by a Democratic victory in 2008.

Then, and perhaps only then, will the madness end.