Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2005

Story Continues Below

  The American people could not connect with Kerry. The stiff Boston Brahmin’s positions were found to be anathema to most Americans: higher taxes, a more legalistic way of dealing with terror, and a liberal social agenda.

Of all of the Monday morning quarterbacking, one perspective is indisputable: On Election Day Americans voted against John Kerry.

And America also voted for George W. Bush – as the better candidate of the two.

I do not believe George Bush’s significant election victory was a mandate for the continuance of the Iraq war, however.

Like most Americans, I supported the President’s war on terror. The removal and capture of Saddam Hussein has made America and the world safer.

Mission accomplished!

To suggest that no mistakes have been made with the handling of the war and its aftermath, or that the election is a mandate for the White House’s Iraq policy, is unfair and unjustified.

In an interview with the Washington Post just days before his second Inaugural, President Bush claimed the election had given the American public’s imprimatur for the continued occupation of Iraq without modification.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush explained in his interview.

The president also insisted that his plans for a democratic Iraq remain unchanged.

"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. I am more patient than some." As a firm supporter of President Bush, I respectfully disagree.

The idea that the U.S. can create a democracy in Iraq in the near future is simply a dream. Iraq has no history of democratic institutions, and there are serious questions about whether Muslim culture will even allow for it.

The only Muslim country to have successfully transited from autocracy to apparent democracy is Turkey.

But Turks are not Arabs, and they have a cultural history that has allowed democratic institutions to incubate. Still, Turkey’s secular military today plays a major role as militant Islamicists have sought to gain power.

Using the Turkish model, the U.S. should have focused on building a secular and powerful military in Iraq first, one capable of holding the Balkanized nation together and yet willing to protect nascent democratic institutions.

Instead, almost from day one of liberation, the focus has been on the rapid creation of a democratic state. I remember after the liberation watching on television as we allowed Iraqis to hold mass demonstrations against us. General McArthur would have been rolling over in his grave.

The great general who successfully occupied Japan would also have been disturbed by the more than 1,000 American heroes who have died in Iraq. While their lives have not been lost in vain, we owe it to their memory to keep the loss of American life small.

But recent reports from the CIA and Defense Department say the U.S. occupation will have to remain for at least four to five more years!

If the insurgency continues, we could be looking at 4,000 to 5,000 more American deaths for the pipe dream of an instant Iraq democracy.

Despite more than a year of U.S. occupation, the casualty rate remains extremely high.

In the last three months of 2004 alone America lost 274 soldiers, and another 2,100 were wounded.

Meanwhile, as America is pinned down in Iraq, more dangerous states like Iran and North Korea continue to make strides in developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction.

Rightly, we ignored most of the world community to take on Iraq. But our continued occupation of Iraq will only grow international antagonism toward us just as we need these nations to join with us in dealing with the likes of the Iranians.

At home the President’s important domestic agenda will be crippled by the Vietnamization of the war. Social Security and tort reform efforts will be undermined by an unpopular war.

The Republicans could also face a serious rout in congressional elections in 2006, when the issue will be not John Kerry but the rising casualty count in Iraq.

And by 2008, if the insurgency is still continuing, as the CIA expects, the Republicans may no longer have the confidence of the American people to remain in the White House.

While I admire the fact that the President does not want to “cut and run,” ending the occupation of Iraq within the next 18 months to two years could hardly be seen as a lack of resolve.

Instead, we must be honest and admit that our success at democratic nation-building is dubious. We need to give the Iraqis the building blocks – including a resilient army – and let them do the rest.

For America, Iraq is mission accomplished. Other, more dangerous nations need our attention.

Editor's note: