War On Iraq Or War On Terror?

By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer

In an address carried live by the networks, Mr. Bush said in the East Room of the White House that Iraq was better off, one year later, that the war on terrorism was inseparable from the war in Iraq, that the coalition must see this war through to the end.

The president listed allies like Estonia and Poland and mispronounced a Japanese diplomat's name. He was far more multilateral in language today than in the months leading up to the March 19, 2003, U.S. invasion of Iraq. And he was as determined as ever.

"The terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country," said Mr. Bush, speaking of Iraq. "For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear. They understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East and they have made the failure of democracy in Iraq one of their primary objectives."

Certinly radical insurgents and terrorists want the U.S. occupation to fail. Certinaly chaos is the breeding ground for terrorism. The contested issue is this: if the war on terror is synonymous with the war in Iraq, then to oppose President Bush's policy on the war in Iraq is to oppose fighting terrorists. An oversimplication to the point of inaccuracy, say Democrats; the dead-on truth, say Republicans.

"The president is clearly trying to say that the war in Iraq is the same as the war on terror, but I think the connection is pretty thin, that the war on terror is very serious but Iraq was not a major contributor to it," said Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

"Al Qaeda is the source of the terror and the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda is thin, and the connection to 9/11 they haven't proven at all," Nye continued. "I think it is for political purposes they want to make the connection between the two as clear as possible, for their purposes, but from an analytical point, it just doesn't register."

A year after the war was launched, Saddam Hussein is in U.S. custody. Baghdad has long been sacked but the United States remains bogged down in a bloody and frustrating occupation of the country. No weapons of mass destruction – the predication for the war – have been found. That the lives of Iraqis are better without Saddam, most Democrats agree. But Iraqis want the Americans out; they have yet to greet U.S. soldiers as more liberator than occupier.

"No one is saying cut and run, that simply is not an option. The stakes here are too great," said Samuel "Sandy" Berger, President Bill Clinton's national security adviser. "Whether you were for this or against this, whatever you thought of this war at the beginning, if we fail, Iraq and the region descends into chaos.

"If we succeed, I think the president is right, it will have a ripple effect on the region that will be a positive effect," Berger continued, speaking to reporters in a conference call following Mr. Bush's speech. "As of now, as I've said, I think there is uncertainty as far as the eye can see."

It is hard for the eye to see past June 30, the firm deadline for coalition officials to return sovereignty to Iraqis. With the Democratic national convention the following month, if Iraq is not stable, if American soldiers are still dying everyday – 570 U.S. troops have been killed to date – there is little doubt that while the Democrats will support the American presence in Iraq, presumptive nominee Sen. John Kerry will rail against the president for leading a failed occupation.

"I think if Iraq stays about the way it is now after June 30, I think it will be a negative factor in the election (of Mr. Bush) but not fully determining," said Nye, emphasizing that the state of the economy is still the determining factor. "Whereas if Iraq gets much better it will turn into a positive factor and if Iraq gets much worse it will become a major factor in the election."

In today's speech, the president did not speak of Iraqi instability, simply saying, "Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq." The president was optimistic, highlighting a people no longer under a tyrant's whip.

"If you say there are a few things we got wrong but the things we got right are much more important, I think that is more credible than saying, 'Gee everything is just fine,'" Nye said, arguing that the president would come off better if he owned up to the unforeseen complications of the occupation.

Speaking on behalf of Kerry, Berger said that it is "increasingly clear" that the war in Iraq "has made the terrorist problem more difficult." Berger called it "a good thing" that Saddam was in U.S. custody. The president responds in stump speeches, arguing that it is a contradiction in terms to celebrate the Iraqi dictator's deposing but be opposed to the war. Kerry argues the war never had to be waged as it was, that the United States could have gotten its allies on board.

Nevertheless, on this anniversary, one fact pierces the political rhetoric: that there will be a general election well before historians sort out the legacy of this war.

"Complete judgment of any major event takes time," Nye said. "I think there will be a tendency to believe that the ends justify the means, but I think we are paying a pretty high price now."

By David Paul Kuhn