President Bush's five-point plan for bringing self-rule to Iraq was too vague and unrealistic to reassure Americans and win new international support.
Published May 26, 2004
President Bush disappointed Americans who had hoped that his Monday night address at the Army War College would lay out a concrete and pragmatic plan for ending the U.S. military occupation in Iraq. Instead, the president's five-point plan sounded more like a five-point wish list:
Transfer "full sovereignty" to Iraq on June 30. (But, under the president's definition of "full sovereignty," U.S. authorities will still be in charge of military and security operations, will still control funding for reconstruction projects throughout the country, and will even set guidelines for Iraqi media and other institutions. U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi will soon unveil a new government, but it is difficult to see how its powers, or lack of same, will differ greatly from those of the provisional authority it is slated to replace.)
"Establish the stability and security that democracy requires." (But the president warned: "There is likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty and after the transfer of sovereignty." The level of violence already is intolerably high, so the president's forecast for the coming months doesn't sound very stable or secure. And he offered no plan for controlling the suicide bombers, saboteurs and rival militias that have escalated attacks against American troops and Iraqi civilians.)
Continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. (But U.S. funds are drying up, and the spike in violence has scared off many would-be foreign investors.)
"Enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition." (But the president hasn't yet made a direct appeal to the leaders of the reluctant governments best able to help provide troops and economic help in Iraq. The new Security Council resolution offered by the White House is as vague as the president's Monday night speech, and the already thin "coalition of the willing" has been shrinking instead of expanding. That leaves the United States to bear the military and economic burden in Iraq for years to come.)
Hold national elections by January. (But free and fair elections require a level of stability that Iraq is unlikely to attain by then. In Afghanistan - where, despite the president's Monday night assertion, Taliban forces still control much of the country more than two years after U.S. troops removed them from power - continuing violence threatens to delay national elections scheduled for September. Yet the Bush administration is relying on U.N. representatives to establish the conditions for Iraqi elections in a matter of months.)
Beyond his troubling lack of specifics, the president still shows no willingness to acknowledge the grievous failures of the past year and demand accountability from those responsible. Without explanation, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was removed Monday as the top U.S. commander in Iraq - hardly a move that builds confidence in the president's vow to "stay the course" - but Sanchez's civilian superiors at the Pentagon have paid no price for their misjudgments and misstatements. The president also proposed Monday that the Abu Ghraib prison be demolished. That might be a nice symbolic gesture. But if he hopes to rebuild his government's tattered image in Iraq and throughout the world, he should begin by demanding full cooperation with investigations into the grotesque abuses of prisoners under U.S. control.
Every sane American supports the president's stated goal of building "a free and self-governing Iraq" and bolstering "the security of America and the civilized world." But this administration's policies have brought chaos to Iraq and left our country more isolated and more vulnerable. The president plans to deliver several more speeches between now and June 30. Americans deserve to hear a more realistic plan for reversing those policy failures than they heard Monday night.
