The Houston Chronicle March 19, 2004
America In Iraq; One Year Later; Questions, doubts swirl in war's wake
By Michael Hedges
WASHINGTON - The gut-wrenching images from one year ago today have faded, along with the eerie green nighttime flashes of explosions and fiery strings of tracer bullets that announced America was once again at war with Iraq.
But certain questions echo louder than ever on the war's anniversary: Was the conflict timely, moral, justified? Has it made the United States safer? And, can Iraq overcome its factionalism and insurgency to build a democracy?
One year after the first U.S. troops streamed across the Kuwaiti border into Iraq, more than 560 soldiers and Marines have been killed and more than 2,800 have been injured, some with permanently disabling wounds.
The large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - which the Bush administration had predicted would be found and could be used in an alliance with terrorists - have not yet materialized.
But Saddam Hussein himself was rooted out of a hole near Tikrit by troops of Fort Hood's 4th Infantry Division last December. Jailed under U.S. guard, the former dictator now awaits trial as a war criminal.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Baghdad and Basra again erupted in flames - this time from bombs that detonated outside hotels and homes in the two cities.
President Bush on Thursday told cheering soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division in Kentucky that the war they helped fight was a success.
"Because America and our allies acted, one of the most evil, brutal regimes in history is gone forever," Bush said, delivering the administration's current justification for the war. "Because America and our allies acted, a state sponsor of terror was put out of business. The Iraqi regime gave cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers and sheltered terrorist groups. But all that's over. When Saddam Hussein went down, the terrorists lost an ally forever."
Opposing views
But Bush's political rivals, including the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have become increasingly aggressive in painting the war as a failure.
"We are still bogged down in Iraq, and the administration stubbornly holds to failed policies that drive potential allies away," Kerry said Wednesday. "What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting costs in dollars with no end in sight."
Iraq took a step this month, which may be seen as a milestone by future generations, when its interim leaders agreed on a constitution guaranteeing democracy and rights of minority groups. However, the constitution will have little meaning for the average person until Americans and their allies defeat the insurgency that raged after Baghdad fell on April 9.
Texans share growing concerns about the war and are almost evenly split over whether to believe Bush's assertion that Saddam's capture has made the United States safer from terrorism, according to a recent Scripps-Howard Texas Poll. But 58 percent of the 1,000 adult Texans surveyed disapprove of the way things are going in Iraq.
That unease is evident elsewhere, according to a Pew Research Survey. Disapproval of the U.S.-led war was reflected in Sunday's election upset in Spain of a government that had solidly backed Bush and provided 1,300 troops for the occupation.
Spain's ruling party fell three days after suspected al-Qaida-linked rail bombings in Madrid killed more than 200 and injured 1,750. The new Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, called the war in Iraq "a fiasco" and promised to pull his troops out of Iraq.
But people with a ground's-eye view of Iraq are quick to note that a steady stream of improvements have occurred there in the past year despite the violence.
Lt. Col. Rick French, a battalion commander with the 4th Infantry Division, returned from Iraq in early March. The 4th is completing a yearlong tour there, in the Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad where Saddam loyalists still predominate.
"We feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment over what is happening in Iraq," French said. "In November, I watched as the Iraqis went through the process of voting for a district advisory council, disagreeing on things and then working them out, and that was an amazing thing."
Concerned with safety
Much of Iraq is fairly stable, with water, electricity and health care services that exceed those during Saddam's regime. But many Iraqis don't feel safe, which keeps them on the fence instead of committing to a democratic future, experts said.
French agreed that security was the dominant concern of Iraqis. "That is their number one thing," he said. "Security is all relative, but they remained concerned about safety."
James Dobbins, a foreign policy expert with the Rand Corp. in California, said the major failure of the Bush administration was to adequately prepare for the security vacuum that followed Saddam's ouster. That vacuum, he said, was quickly filled by Islamic extremists, Saddam loyalists and criminals.
"There was the gross failure of not anticipating the need for a large follow-on force that should have included lots of security specialists like military police," he said.
Dobbins said the administration wanted to use as few troops as possible in Iraq, in part because Afghanistan still required a large military commitment.
"At a strategic level," Dobbins said, "it would have been wiser to establish a secure environment in Afghanistan before Iraq. As it is, the U.S. military is now way overstretched."
Distant abstraction
The stakes in Iraq are enormous.
While much of the world focuses on the images of blood and destruction from Iraq, a tectonic shift in regional attitudes could occur if democracy takes hold there, but that seems a distant abstraction.
Edward Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria who is now director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, said that whatever early mistakes the United States made in Iraq, it now must cultivate the seeds of democracy there for the long-term health of the entire Middle East.
"If Iraq evolves in the right direction in terms of political participation and constitutionally based law, it could be a very positive example for other Middle Eastern states," he said.
The U.S. involvement in Iraq gives an opportunity to Islamic extremists as well, experts said. By choosing to fight in Iraq, Bush has risked a setback that would diminish American influence in the region for decades, according to a report by the influential Council on Foreign Relations, a group of current and former policy-makers and scholars in Washington.
The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority is committed to handing over political power to Iraqis by early July, though more than 100,000 American troops will remain there to provide security and prevent civil war.
Experts said Iraq could be headed for one of the most turbulent periods in its history when that transfer occurs.
"Everybody in Iraq will push to the limits of the new system, trying to protect the interests of their factions and seize as much power in the new government as possible," Dobbins said.
At the same time, anti-U.S. insurgents are likely to step up terrorist attacks, trying to discourage Iraqis from hopes of a real democracy while influencing American voters ahead of the presidential decision in November.
Widespread fear
The report by the Council on Foreign Relations took a detailed look at Iraq on the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion.
Perhaps inevitably - given the complex, turbulent situation there - the report documented both major advances and huge challenges.
"The coalition has been unable to ensure a safe and secure environment within critical areas of Iraq," the study said. "This lack of security has created widespread fear among Iraqis, inhibited growth of private economic activity (and) distorted the initial development of a robust and open civil society."
The report concluded that the toughest days of the U.S. involvement may be just ahead.
But former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who co-chaired the report, said the stakes are too high to cut and run now.
"The future image of the United States will be affected" by whether Iraq stabilizes and succeeds as a democracy, he said.
The success or failure of the reconstruction effort, he said, will decide "whether America is seen as a shining city on the hill or a new imperial power."
THE PRICE OF WAR
U.S. troops killed in Iraq
More than 560 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Troop deaths averaged 69 a month during March and April of 2003. Since May 1, the monthly average has dropped to 41.
President Bush's $ 87 billion request for the war on terror for the budget year ending Sept. 30, 2004, will push the deficit to more than $ 500 billion. Currently, the war costs about $ 4 billion a month.
Total request - $ 87 billion Afghanistan - $ 1.2 billion Africa, misc. - $ 3.8 billion Afghanistan - $ 11 billion
Iraq-$ 51 Iraq $ 20
Military phase - $ 66 billion Reconstruction phase - $ 21 billion
GRAPHIC: Photo: 1. REMEMBERING THE FALLEN: President Bush, visiting troops with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Thursday, said of those who have given their lives in Iraq: "We will honor their names forever."; Graph: 2. THE PRICE OF WAR (TEXT, p. 20); Map: 3. Locations of U.S. troops killed, state-by-state. (p. 20); 1. Charles Dharapak / Associated Press, 2. Sources: Associated Press; Coalition Provisional Authority; Pentagon; White House; U.S. State Department; GlobalSecurity.org; Knight Ridder Tribune
© Copyright 2004, The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
