The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner


Bush Presidency at Serious Risk if U.S. Invades Iraq

David T. Pyne

David T. Pyne

dpyne@americasvoices.org          
biography
archives

March 19, 2003

 


On March 6th, President Bush gave another prime-time address containing increasing references reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak in which he vowed to wage war upon Iraq "in the name of peace" if Saddam "refused to disarm".  He vowed to "liberate" and bring democracy to Iraq, a country where true "one man, one vote" democracy would likely result in a Shiite majority, terrorist-supporting state closely aligned with what Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute rightly termed the "mother of all terrorist states", the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Paradoxically, even as the President has gone to great lengths to avoid being compared to his father, who served only one term, he appears to be repeating the mistakes of his father that resulted in his being defeated for re-election on an even more grandiose scale.  While former President George H.W. Bush achieved a stunning, though in many ways fleeting, victory over Saddam Hussein in his just war of liberation of Kuwait, the current President Bush does not appear to be willing to wait for Saddam to provide him with a similar justification for a second U.S. invasion of Iraq.  He seems determined to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not Iraq cooperates with U.N. weapons inspectors and regardless of what inspectors do or do not find.  After all, disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction was never the Administration's real rationale for invading Iraq.  The administration was forced to adopt that rationale because it was the only one that offered the promise of potential widespread diplomatic support for its predetermined decision to invade Iraq.

The real rationale for invasion has always been regime change, pure and simple.  The President wants Saddam deposed, captured or killed—and so it will be.  The consensus in the Administration appears to be that the end justifies the means, which has included alternatively threatening and bribing the weaker nations of the world into supporting its policy on Iraq, as well as an attempted politicization of the intelligence community, which has not been witnessed for many years if not decades.  However, this course of action will not be without considerable risks—not merely to U.S. national security, but to the President's own re-election and the GOP's prospects for retaining control of Congress.

Popular support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq continues to plummet.  Americans are now evenly divided on whether to launch a U.S. invasion of Iraq.  A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken a few weeks ago revealed that only 52% of Americans supported war with Iraq—down from 78% in November, 2001.  However, a more recent survey revealed that support for war with Iraq was "soft" in the sense that most of those that supported it conditioned their support on evidence of major Iraqi WMD violations being found and allowing the U.N. weapons inspectors the several months they say they need to complete their weapons inspections.  The survey stated that barely more than half of those who said they supported war would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq even if no evidence of Iraqi WMD was found.  Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq.

The President's polling numbers have dropped precipitously over the last few months due in large part to his continued insistence on launching a U.S. invasion of Iraq that has been difficult to justify and, consequently, is increasingly unpopular both with our Allies and with the American people.  The latest poll shows him with a 53% approval rating.  The President's falling poll numbers in turn have emboldened Democrats—especially those running for President—to attack him on Iraq and other foreign and domestic policy issues.  Soon Hillary Rodham-Clinton, the undisputed frontrunner for the 2004 Democrat presidential nomination—which is hers for the taking—will likely enter the race and join the fray.

As the President continues to push for war in the Middle East, the Washington Times reported on March 7th that some liberal House Democrats, including at least one senior Congressman, are drafting articles of impeachment against Bush and perhaps against members of his Cabinet.  The draft resolution accuses Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft of more than a dozen 'high crimes and misdemeanors', including Constitutional violations in the domestic war on terrorism.  It also charges Bush with "threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression."  While these impeachment charges have little chance of passage in the GOP-controlled Congress, they could be used as a base from which to attack the President.  Opposition to the President could gain considerable momentum if the war and the ensuing U.S. occupation of Iraq goes badly and U.S. forces suffer thousands of battlefield casualties from Saddam's CBR attacks, making the war increasingly unpopular as some experts have foreseen.

This author first predicted that the President would in all likelihood lose his re-election bid if he invaded Iraq back in August, when he began his recent long-march to war with Iraq—even though he was still enjoying stellar approval ratings in the 70s at the time. (The Coming New World Order—Whose Vision Will Prevail?)  The latest presidential poll by Quinnipiac University, published on March 6th, shows Bush losing his re-election bid 48-44 against the Democrat presidential nominee were the election to be held today.  According to this and other recent polls, Mr. Bush's approval rating has dropped to an all-time low since 9-11—only 53%, a substantial drop stemming principally from his botched performance over threatening unjust war against Iraq.  The same poll also showed that 54% were either somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the way things were going in the country.  Yet, the President does not seem to care.  He remains singularly obsessed with deposing Saddam Hussein to avenge an alleged 1993 Iraqi assassination attempt on his father with no thoughts to the many harmful consequences to the GOP and—more importantly—to this nation's national security that will likely follow.

With war with Iraq around the corner, which, with an ensuing indefinite U.S. military occupation of 200,000 troops, has been projected to cost anywhere from $100 billion to one trillion dollars and projected deficits of $300 billion as far as the eye can see that will inevitably worsen if the U.S. invades, the economic outlook is very dismal indeed.  Combine that with an anemic economic growth rate, a falling stock market and record $500 billion a year trade deficits which may threaten higher interest rates, and it appears that the U.S. is headed for record-breaking budget deficits and a double-dip recession which will serve as a powerful impetus not to re-elect a Republican President and a GOP majority in Congress.  Beware—for unless we veer from our present course on Iraq, the age of Hillary may be fast approaching.  Former Vice President Al Gore will likely rue the day when he announced he would not run for President in the wake of his Saturday Night Live debacle.

Only principled leadership by the U.S. Congress to withdraw us from the Pandora's Box of invasion will save the Republic from this likely fate.  The only other thing that could forestall this likely outcome is if Saddam Hussein were to accept exile or be assassinated prior to the imminent U.S. invasion, neither of which has much chance of happening.  Some wars aren't worth fighting—especially if the cause is not just—even if victory is assured in the short-term, as in the case of Iraq.  Sometimes, it is as important—if not more so—to win the peace as it is to win the war itself.  As a noted historian once observed, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

Copyright © Copyright © 2020 by David T. Pyne, Esq., Center for the National Security Interest & America's Voices, Inc.  All rights reserved.
David T. Pyne, Esq., is a national security expert who serves as President of the Center for the National Security Interest, a pro-defense, national security think-tank based in Arlington, VA.  He has been published on WorldNetDaily, America's Voices, and other conservative opinion websites, and has been interviewed on public access television and on assorted radio talk show programs in regards to his views on both political and national security issues.  E-mail David at dpyne@americasvoices.org.

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner

D-Day inaugural
feature article

www.americasvoices.org
publisher@americasvoices.org
editor@americasvoices.org
webmaster@americasvoices.org

Disclaimer

Publishing Guidelines

Copyright © Copyright © 2020 by Americas's Voices, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio.  All rights reserved.

America's Voices, America's Voices University, americasvoices.org and www.AmericasVoices.org are service marks of America's Voices, Inc. a not-for-profit educational organization.