No tidy conclusions in assessing the war
WASHINGTON -- A year ago today, in a solemn White House address, President Bush declared the start of a war to "defend the world from grave danger."
It wasn't, Bush acknowledged, an ordinary defensive war, but rather, a new kind of war to root out threats before they can menace the world.
Longtime US allies watched with trepidation. Some -- France, Germany, Russia, even next-door Canada and Mexico -- expressed disagreement. Others, like Britain, Spain, and Poland, offered support even as their people massed against the war.
Now, after a year of military victories, the capture of a dictator, a bloody insurgency, an unsuccessful hunt for weapons of mass destruction, and a terror attack in Spain that may have been designed to retaliate for the war, no one knows for sure whether the world is safer or less safe.
"You look back after a year and you're not sure we've made the progress we should have," said retired General William Nash, former US commander in Bosnia and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, reflecting the uncertainty that marks much of the discussion on Iraq these days.
Few specialists can easily assess a war that marked a high point of US military prowess, but also cost 568 American lives and triggered a deadly insurgency as well as a lacerating backlash in world opinion.
"Obviously, eliminating the scourge of Saddam Hussein was a plus," Nash said. "But as a result of the invasion, we've incurred a long-term obligation for the betterment of Iraq that requires significant commitments -- in military, civilian, and dollar resources."
Meanwhile, he added, "Al Qaeda continues to be viable, and there's evidence their pace of activities is growing."
In this political year, voters emphasize in surveys that the economy is their prime concern, but Bush's approval ratings have not risen or fallen based on the performance of the economy: His standing tends to follow the progress of the war in Iraq. And both Bush and his presumptive Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry, seem eager to engage each other on the question of whether America is safer because of Bush's handling of the war.
Bush has always maintained that the Iraq war is a key component of his larger war on terrorism. But the most powerful links are intangible -- the war as a show of US might and a signal to troublesome regimes that they must be responsive to US and United Nations demands.
It is on this basis that Bush intends to defend the war politically. His statements, including a speech yesterday at Fort Campbell, Ky., emphasize the importance of having made a show of force. He has asserted that concessions by Iran and Libya indicate that other Middle Eastern nations have received the message of Iraq: They must renounce their programs to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, or face the same fate as Hussein.
"Because America and our allies acted, it is clear to everyone [that] when America makes a pledge, we keep our word," Bush declared at Fort Campbell.
But that type of statement, often greeted with applause before friendly audiences, is received differently outside the United States, according to Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which this week released a series of polls indicating unprecedented levels of anti-American feeling.
When Bush makes declarations like "we keep our word," people outside the United States seem to hear the rattling of a saber. The Pew survey covered eight US allies: four in Europe (Britain, France, Russia, and Germany) and four in the Muslim world (Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, and Pakistan). In none of the eight countries did respondents say they believe the war helped in the fight against terrorism.
The survey indicated that majorities in the four friendly Muslim countries believe the United States invaded Iraq to secure Mideast oil and achieve world domination rather than fight terrorism. And in all eight allies, huge majorities said they disliked Bush.
In an interview last month on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush said he was puzzled by his low standing outside the United States, but noted that President Reagan was also unpopular.
Kohut, however, said the drop in US prestige under Bush is worse than under Reagan.
"This is a low point in terms of feelings about America," Kohut said yesterday. "It's a bigger deal than it was at various points during the Cold War."
Worse for Bush, those leaders who defied public opinion in their countries to back the United States have paid a price. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair withstood a national investigation into prewar intelligence claims; in Spain, the government lost power in elections after last week's bombings in the Madrid subway, for which Al Qaeda claimed responsibility in retaliation for Spain's support of the Iraq war.
The price for supporting the United States has been high because American claims of Iraq's weapons capability proved to have been exaggerated -- and many of Bush's own prewar statements failed to include doubts or conditions expressed in US intelligence reports.
More than questioning the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, Kerry has challenged Bush's handling of the prewar negotiations with allies and Bush's perceived lack of sensitivity to world opinion. Kerry has noted that international cooperation is crucial to preventing terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, across America, a narrow majority in most polls continues to support the war, while assessing it more critically, now with an eye toward November's election. Bush's fate, many agree, will depend on how the public views the situation in Iraq eight months from now.
"There are fewer flags on the streets," said Patrick Stafford Kelley, editorial page editor of The Emporia Gazette in Kansas, a bellwether Middle America community that wrestled over the war before supporting it. "The first flush of patriotism has ended. People are hunkered down and . . . wondering when it's going to end."
