Plainly, the news from Iraq in recent days, including the spike in U.S. casualties, has been bad, and it's likely to get worse in the months ahead. But so far the war has done little to disturb business-as-usual on the home front.
While U.S. soldiers are dying almost daily in Iraq, we are fighting our own political and religious wars and putting selfishness ahead of sacrifice. We are complaining about the cost of gasoline at the pump but still buying gas-guzzling SUVs as fast as they roll off the assembly line. George Bush and John Kerry are slamming each other with dishonest campaign ads and are leading Americans to believe we can have it all - war or no war, soaring budget deficits or not. In our churches and in the political arena we are fighting over gay marriage, as if it really matters.
Nearly all Americans, of course, will tell you they are supporting and praying for our soldiers in that awful land of horrors once ruled by Saddam Hussein. At least we are united on that. But our soldiers need more than our thoughts and prayers. Why, for example, isn't the American public outraged over sending our soldiers to their deaths in unarmored Humvees that were never intended for use in combat areas? And why was there not enough body armor to protect all of our troops (some families bought flak jackets out of their own pockets and shipped them to their loved ones in Iraq)? At the very least, we owe our men and women in uniform any protection that money can buy.
American soldiers have been in harm's way in Iraq for a year now, and we owe them more than patriotic rituals and yellow ribbons. We owe them our willingness to make sacrifices on the home front. We owe these "volunteer" soldiers - many of whom enlist in the military to gain opportunities they didn't find in civilian society - our gratitude for the job they are doing while our own sons and daughters enjoy an easy life where sacrifice means having to work a part-time job instead of going on spring break.
Above all, however, we owe these soldiers accountability on the part of the political leaders - in the White House and in the Congress - who sent them into this quagmire. President Bush and his chickenhawk administration have a lot to answer for. They should not be allowed to hide behind the flag that drapes the coffin of every soldier killed in a war that didn't have to be fought, at least not they way the president went about it.
If nothing else, let this year's presidential election be a referendum on Bush's handling of the Iraq war. I'm not talking about just his decision to take us into war to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which have yet to be found. Let's also hold this administration accountable for its arrogance and miscalculations in failing to plan for the realities war critics warned we would face in Iraq after Saddam's regime was toppled.
Even the Economist, a British news magazine that endorsed Bush over Al Gore in the 2000 election, appears to have doubts about Bush's leadership at home and in the world. It is not yet convinced the American president deserves a second term. In its latest issue, the magazine expressed concern over the administration's reckless budgeting - the "arithmetic has often been haywire" - and its mistakes in Iraq - a war the Economist supported.
"Contrary to Mr. Bush's assertions," the magazine said, "the war was one of choice, not necessity. Given that, it was foolish to exaggerate Saddam's weaponry, downright misleading to imply a link between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaida, and hubristic to do so little to prepare for postwar reconstruction. (When (Richard) Clarke complains about people in the White House being obsessed about Iraq, one is tempted to reply: "If only they had been.') Mistakes soon piled up: handing the running of the country to the Pentagon; letting looters rip out the infrastructure; disbanding the Iraqi army; and dismissing outside efforts to help."
Those issues should be at the center of the Iraq debate in this presidential campaign. Bush's record is there for all to see and judge. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, also has some explaining to do, and not just about why he and other Democrats joined Senate Republicans in voting for war. Kerry has little choice now but to say the United States must stay the course and finish the job in Iraq. But he needs to give us some idea of what he would do differently to stabilize Iraq and how he would extract the United States from this mess short of sounding retreat.
A recent poll by the National Annenberg Election Survey framed the choice for voters this November: "Americans consider President Bush steadier, a stronger leader, more likable and less likely to bow to political pressure than Sen. John F. Kerry. But they consider Kerry more knowledgeable than Bush and less reckless and stubborn."
On Iraq, the options for the next president - whoever he is - are lousy. Unfortunately, the American soldiers fighting Iraqi insurgents have no options other than to fight on and pray they will come home alive.
