Iraq and the limits of the US presidency

For someone who grew up in the US during the Vietnam War, the following reports bring back painful memories of a turbulent era: Bush warns of more sacrifice in Iraq, protesters rally; and Sunnis pledge to fight Iraq's constitution. True, that earlier conflict cost the US some 58,000 lives, while current war-related deaths have not yet reached 2,000. Vietnam was also part of a larger global superpower standoff, while the current war is not. Yet the open-ended conflict, coupled with declining presidential approval ratings, seems distressingly familiar.

The following stands out because it underscores a serious flaw in the Bush administration's approach:

In an effort to shift public perceptions, Mr Bush last week gave three speeches in as many days, vowing that America would not be pulling out of Iraq. "As long as I'm the President, we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terror," he said.

"As long as I'm the President. . . ." Even if we assume the justice of the current US cause in Iraq, the fact is, and always has been, that Bush will be president only until January 2009. From the outset, a prudent Iraq policy would have had to take into account, not only the Iraqi political culture, but also the temporal limits of the Bush presidency and the possibility that his successor might see fit to change course. If invading and securing Iraq — not to mention something as nebulous as winning a war on terror — could not be done within this time limit, then an alternative policy ought to have been considered. Good defence policy does not occur in a political vacuum and must inevitably account for such variables. Not to do so is a mistake that Bush's father, who undoubtedly had the best grasp of foreign policy of any 20th-century US president, would not have made. The younger Bush's principal failing is that he seems not to have relied on his own father's better judgement in this area.

So, George, please swallow your pride and give Dad a call.