"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," President George W. Bush told The Washington Post in an interview published Sunday morning. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me." Thus is dismissed any notion that the unfolding situation in Iraq is anything the White House should be troubled by or inclined to alter its approach in response.
And it's true, of course, that Bush won the recent election with the support of about 2.5 percent more of the population than his rival, Senator John Kerry, was able to muster. But only 15 percent of that electorate told exit pollsters that Iraq was their top concern. Of that group, just 23 percent supported Bush, as opposed to the 73 percent who backed Kerry. Only 11 percent of the electorate believed things were going "very well" in Iraq, compared with 33 percent who thought things were going "very badly." With leaners pushed, 44 percent thought things were going well, while 52 percent said things were going badly. If, as the president seems to believe, vox populi is vox dei on the subject of Iraq, then it's clear that the mandate is for a new approach, not more of the same.
The president's top issue, famously, was "moral values" -- in other words, using the state's coercive power to defend traditional sex and gender norms. Interestingly, the Post reported that "Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups."
I don't think the Senate should pass any such amendment either; so on one level, I'm glad to hear it. But if Bush's reelection is a mandate for anything, it's a mandate for this. Instead, he sees an unflinching endorsement of his Iraq policies. Unfortunately, Bush's habit seems to be to see endorsements everywhere he turns.
Near the beginning of January, Chris Nelson's influential newsletter reported that "efforts to honestly discuss the security situation [in Iraq] are personally rebuffed by the president." According to Nelson, "Outside the bubble, the uniforms, and U.S. intelligence, are increasingly doubtful. But their views aren't getting through political appointees officially tasked with blocking dissent." A January 13 Financial Times report echoed this assessment, describing "an understanding in the State Department and Pentagon of the depth of the crisis" -- yet a president who doesn't hear the warning signs. Reports differ on how, exactly, this came about and who inside the administration is responsible.
There's certainly plenty of blame to go around, but the situation is genuinely dangerous. In two weeks, with the election behind us, the Iraq conflict will enter a new and delicate phase. The choice of a system of proportional representation, and Shiite leaders' preference for consolidating into a single electoral list rather than running against each other, makes it unlikely that the vote will produce a decisive verdict on the direction of the country. The United States will have to forge a new relationship with Iraq's new leadership, while simultaneously holding some sway over the nature of that leadership.
If an elected regime supported by Iraq's Kurds and Shiites is willing to support us, there is every reason to think that the United States has the capacity to defeat the insurgency. Sunnis are outnumbered by their Shiite co-nationals and badly outgunned by the American military. It's now obvious that doing so, even with the full support of an elected government, will require more troops and more money than we're spending right now. Such an effort will require a bigger Army and National Guard overall to relieve pressure on an already-overstrained military.
But the president also promised the Post that he would do no such thing. And perhaps with good reason. The Defense Department's budget is already huge by world standards, and the budget deficit is enormous. And while a robust American commitment would likely produce victory in Iraq, it's unlikely it could achieve the more grandiose dreams of the pre-war hawks: a stable, pro-American, liberal democracy that could simultaneously serve as a model for regional reform efforts and as a platform for future American military action. So if this is right, the correct thing to do after the elections is to admit that mistakes were made and begin the painful process of going home.
Whatever security threat Iraq's supposed WMDs posed has been eliminated. Iraq has emerged as a new locus for terrorist training and recruitment and will continue to be so no matter what we do. The resources we're currently dedicating to the mission are plainly inadequate to the task. It's time to bring this to an end. Staying the course is plainly useless, bringing the worst of both worlds. Hopefully someone will tell the president.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.
