Iraq critics aren’t just peaceniks

Iraq critics aren’t just peaceniks
by Randy Schultz 

Critics of the Iraq War are nothing but aging hippies, Vietnam-era peaceniks who want to sing Kumbaya with Al-Qaeda and whose idea of a big night out is to rummage through the dumpsters at Whole Foods.

Or so Republican leaders in Congress and their enablers in the broadcast and Web world would have you believe.

Last week, the House of Representatives held another dishonest debate about the Iraq War as the troop death count hit 2,500 and the tab hit $320 billion. All along, one of the most dishonest aspects of the “debate” has been the description of those who question 1) whether invading Iraq was the right response to 9/11 and 2) why so many decisions about the invasion and the postwar have been lousy.

Public opinion on Vietnam turned when a majority of Americans, not just hippies in Haight-Ashbury, became skeptics. So, President Bush’s loyalists have been desperate to characterize Iraq skeptics not as mainstream Americans but as part of the “antiwar left.” Cue the marijuana smoke and black-light posters…

Those who have described Iraq critics as “antiwar left” include Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, right-wing Web sites and the online versions of The National Review and The Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

The implication is clear: Unless you support Mr. Bush and the war, you are an unpatriotic terrorist-coddler.

And you probably smell bad.

Afghanistan: The right fight

In fact, there is an “antiwar left” in America. There always has been. When Congress approved the invasion of Afghanistan, the one dissenting vote came from Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat from Berkeley, Calif. Berkeley is to the “antiwar left” what Talladega is to stock-car racing, so Rep. Lee’s vote wasn’t all that surprising, even if it made her look like a patsy.

But the great majority of Americans, and this newspaper, backed Mr. Bush on Afghanistan because it was the right fight. There wasn’t much debate in Congress because there didn’t need to be. The Taliban government in Afghanistan had protected Al-Qaeda, which had carried out the 9/11 attacks. Getting to Al-Qaeda meant going through Afghanistan. Mr. Bush was honest about the motive and the plan.

With Iraq, though, the president was dishonest. As the recent book Cobra II shows, the Bush administration ordered the military to start work on invasion plans many months before the president’s chief of staff began publicly discussing invasion in August 2002. Obviously, armies can’t fight from a standing start, but Mr. Bush said throughout the congressional debate that war was the last option. In fact, it was the first option.

Finding that out, and understanding what the deception has cost, bothers more than the “antiwar left.” It bothers accountants, teachers and merchants. It bothers World War II veterans. It bothers Rotarians. It bothers Girl Scout troop leaders. It bothers people who worry about terrorism. It bothers people who want to trust their government.

GOP dug in, Democrats disorganized

It’s far too late to have even a coherent debate on Iraq, let alone an honest one. Most Republicans in Congress are dug in, and Democrats are disorganized. For Americans, the unsatisfying choice is between Mr. Bush’s repeated pleas for patience – he first asked in April 2003 – and the Democrats’ dithering. All troops out now? By the end of the year? In phases?

Like a cyclical stock, American public opinion about the war moves up and down with perception. As with Vietnam, the White House blames the media for bad poll numbers, but the White House sold the war based on weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist and regularly raised expectations about turning points that led back to violence.

Judging by polls and public comment, most Americans understand that President Bush selectively used intelligence to justify invading Iraq. Most Americans also understand that even if invading was, at best, a miscalculation, it would be better to stay in Iraq until the government appears capable of securing the country. But they don’t understand how long that might take or how the Bush administration might do it.

Those Americans aren’t part of the “antiwar left,” though some surely shop at Whole Foods. They expect from those in Washington what those in the military are giving in Iraq: their best.