THE THREE PHONY WARS OF GEORGE W. BUSH – by Frankie Sturm 

Fall was supposed to be make or break time for President George W. Bush’s war policy. It hasn’t been. In September, the much-anticipated Petraeus Report was expected to tie up the loose ends of the Iraq war, demonstrating progress and providing new directions for policy. Instead, congressional doves and hawks alike climbed aboard the David Petraeus bandwagon, each camp claiming vindication. Consequently, an event that was billed as a pivotal moment in the Iraq debate has produced nothing but confusion and disagreement. Yet this should come as no surprise, for the Petraeus Report, like so many “turning points” before it, failed to clarify the fundamental reality of our presence in Iraq: It still doesn’t tell us what we’re doing there. 

According to President Bush, we’re in Iraq to fight three wars at the same time. One of these wars is the war between democracy and dictatorship. According to the administration, the United States is taking up arms to overthrow tyrants and install democratic governments throughout the world. Granted, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, and the United States overthrew him. However, the claim that President Bush’s America is systematically going after dictators in order to plant the seeds of democracy has little credibility beyond the echo chamber of the Oval Office Some of America’s most important allies -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. -- are profoundly antidemocratic. President Bush’s democracy-promotion argument for war is a false one. 

The second war the Bush administration is trying to fight is the war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. In this war, it is said that Mr. Bush is not picking a side so much as trying to reconcile the two major sects of Islam. However, this claim is obviously false, and even if it were true, it would be foolish. Both in and out of Iraq, President Bush has flip-flopped his support from Shiite to Sunni groups with haphazard inconsistency. Since both sides know that America might flip again, they have no reason to negotiate with one another. It is easier to wait and hope for Mr. Bush to change his mind. 

That such a policy is foolish in the first place is clear from the fact that Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for about 1,300 years. The notion that a few more years of George W. Bush would enable them to patch up all their differences and lead to a new dawn of peace in the Middle East is as ignorant as it is arrogant. If this imprudent course of action is the major justification for leaving American troops in Iraq — hoping they’ll provide security while Sunnis and Shiites provide a negotiated peace — we should begin withdrawing our forces as quickly as possible. The war for reconciliation then is also a false one. 

The final war the Bush administration is leading is the so-called “War on Terrorism.” If this means capturing terrorists and preventing attacks, then it would be hard to complain. Unfortunately, the war on terror has had the unwelcome — though very anticipated — effect of discrediting moderate Islam and bolstering violent extremism. Our number one problem regarding terrorism is al Qaida, but in 2001 the Bush administration those not to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his supporters in Afghanistan.  

The administration opted for Iraq instead. Consequently, there are more terrorists and terrorist attacks than when Mr. Bush first came into office. Curiously, his administration has also been protecting an anti-Iranian terrorist group called the MEK. A war on terrorism in which al Qaida is allowed to escape, and support is provided to terrorists, seems highly suspicious. In other words, Bush’s third wars also a false one. 

The harsh reality is that the war in Iraq has little to do with democracy or terrorism, and everything to do with oil reserves and cash cows for government contractors. While this might be good for a small handful influential politicians and business leaders, it is certainly not good for national security. As the debate surrounding Iraq heats up with the impending presidential election, it’s essential that we, as Americans, get a better grasp of what our best interests are. 

What’s clear is that President Bush, caught up in fanciful justifications of the war in Iraq, has utterly failed at hunting down the murderers who are responsible for 9/11, while simultaneously plunging the Middle East into chaos. In doing, so he has proven that he is softer on terror than he is on reality. We’d do well to remember that as we debate the future of his failed strategy in Iraq.