Bush's retreat on Iraq and his pride

By Scot Lehigh, 9/10/2003

GEORGE W. BUSH buried his lead, as we say in this business, when he spoke to the nation about Iraq on Sunday. The real news didn't come until the president was halfway through his speech: "I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America." What the speech really marked, then, was a strategic retreat carefully cloaked in the guise of resolve. Returning hat in hand to the UN is the last thing this administration planned to do in the heady aftermath of its quick victory over Saddam Hussein's forces. That Bush has now decided he must do just that speaks to how mistaken were the administration's notions about winning the peace.

Whereas the Pentagon once thought that, by fall, as few as 30,000 US troops would be required in Iraq, Bush himself now as much as concedes that the effort will take not just the 130,000 we now have there, but more than the United States can comfortably supply.

Thus the president has belatedly endorsed a course that leading Democrats have urged for months now: internationalizing our attempts to pacify and rebuild Iraq by moving beyond our immediate allies and engaging the larger world community in the effort.

Still, however belatedly and grudgingly Bush has come to that course, his decision is clearly the correct one. And whatever the differences over going to war, the world community should have an interest in helping ensure a stable, democratic Iraq.

Meanwhile, for the Arab street, slow even now to acknowledge the horrors of Saddam's regime, enlisting the UN has the potential to change the symbolism from that of American occupation to a unified international effort to rebuild Iraq.

Senator Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says the price of UN help will be giving other nations a piece of the lucrative reconstruction contracts as well as a say in shaping Iraq's government.

The first is an easy concession to make to countries willing to share the risk of guerrilla warfare. Meanwhile, "It would clearly be in our interests to give up being the majordomo in saying exactly what that government will look like," Biden said in an interview with this columnist. We should welcome UN involvement in forming the new Iraqi government "so that when the transition takes place, it is viewed both in the region and the world as not the imposition of an occupying power, but the consensus of the international community," Biden concluded.

Indeed, any move that brings an international imprimatur, that has the potential to enlist the help of Muslim nations, and that lessens the sense of American occupation, is a distinct plus.

Still, for a president whose strong suit with the public has been the sense that he would do better than the Democrats at keeping this nation safe, Sunday's speech should be read as evidence of previous prideful error.

Further, Bush's tacit admission that the financial burdens of building a new Iraq are too great for this country alone to bear also calls into question the administration's massive tax cuts.

Can it really be that winning the peace in Iraq is vital enough for the president to reverse himself and return to the UN, but not important enough for him to rethink the tax cuts that will contribute significantly to federal budget deficits now projected (by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) to total $5.1 trillion over the next decade?

With the president asking for an additional $87 billion for US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Secretary of State Colin Powell preparing to seek donations from the world community for US efforts in both places, does the president's notion that tax fairness dictates large reductions for the wealthy really make any sense?

Phasing out the estate tax alone, for example, will cost the treasury $138 billion over 10 years, notes Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. Rate reductions for families earning more than $225,000 will equal $81 billion over three years, adds McIntyre, while the new break for dividend income will reduce the federal coffers by $70 billion over the same period.

The president may have come to a belated recognition of the high cost of trying to rebuild Iraq with limited allies. Yet that unstated admission in his speech only highlights the fiscal folly he continues to pursue.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.