Don’t beat around the Bush

Some ex-American hawks are now admitting that Iraq may compare to the other massive US debacle—Vietnam

Kaushik Kapisthalam Philadelphia

In 1994, the Republican Party fielded a bunch of young candidates for elections to the House of Representatives. Armed with what they called a ‘Contract with America’ and a promise to end corruption, they rode to power for the first time in 40 years by beating incumbents in 52 seats. In November, the tables turned and the Democrats gained 30 seats, winning back the majority. Mid-term US elections are typically bad for the party of the incumbent president. However, what happened this time was not just a matter of mid-term blues for George W Bush. Apart from the House sweep, the Democrats also regained power in the Senate, albeit with a razor-thin 51-49 margin. Unlike the ‘Republican Revolution’ of 1994, the Democrats this year had no compact or big promises. Their main issue was one on which they did not have even a unified policy—Iraq.

Bush did not wait long to react to the election news. In just hours after the results were known, he announced that his confidant and one of the main architects of the Iraq invasion, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, would soon be out of a job. The drama of Rumsfeld’s sacking was heightened by Bush’s spirited defence of him days before when an influential military publication chain called for Rumsfeld’s head over his mishandling of Iraq.

A week before the election, when the Army Times group observed, “Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," Bush responded by insisting that Rumsfeld will stay on until 2008. When asked by reporters why he defended Rumsfeld just days before firing him, Bush danced around the question before moving on. Amazingly, the usually hostile White House press corps let him get away, perhaps feeling that the president had received enough of a beating from the US voters.

Bush acknowledged the message of the people later on in the press conference, calling the election results a “thumping”. Rumsfeld himself was defiant, noting in his exit press meeting that the Iraq war was “not well known” and “not well understood”. It appeared as though Rumsfeld was criticising the American voters for not showing enough intelligence in understanding Iraq.

What Rumsfeld’s removal means for America’s Iraq campaign is still uncertain. There is little doubt now in the US that Iraq is sliding out of control. The conflict has become worse than a civil war and the country’s administration is on the brink of collapse. There are at least four internal conflicts, the status of which varies between unsteady and Armageddon. There is a Shia-Sunni civil war in and around Baghdad, intra-Shiite conflicts in the south, a Sunni jihadi insurgency in the west and ethnic tension between Arabs and Kurds in the north for the control of oil-rich lands. Recent estimates of Iraqis killed since the US invasion of 2003 range from 60,000 to several lakhs. At least twenty lakh Iraqis are refugees or have become displaced.