Bush still sees no reason to apologise
Monday 20 March 2006
Latest in Americas
On Facebook
From the blogs
More than half of Afghanistan’s families live in extreme poverty
Leila is watching her baby intently, as his mouth moves trying to swallow the small blob of yellow p...
Time for a new approach to alcohol
Ambulances were called and three drunk teenagers were brought to my care. One was so drunk we had to...
Bahrain: One year on
I am used to endless lies and criticism from the BNP and its favourite blogster, as well as Islamist...
Paul Volcker stands tall against the banking lobby
Why is Europe, which likes to present itself as an opponent of speculative "Anglo-Saxon" finance, li...
If anyone was looking for even the slightest hint of second thoughts from those led the US into Iraq, they would have been sorely disappointed on the third anniversary of a war that is eating into America's soul and that may well reshape its political landscape.
More sacrifice would be required, but "our goal is nothing less than complete victory", President George Bush declared in his weekly radio address yesterday.
Ignore the doom-mongering, Dick Cheney urged his countrymen on CBS's Face the Nation programme. This was no civil war; rather the insurgents had reached "a stage of desperation". On both the security and political fronts, Iraq was showing "major progress".
Writing in The Washington Post, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary - blamed by many for the absence of post-invasion planning - was equally unrepentant. The big picture would be determined by history, "not by daily headlines, website blogs, or the latest sensational attack", Mr Rumsfeld declared. To retreat now would be "the modern equivalent of handing post-war Germany back to the Nazis, or of asking the former Communist states of eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because the West did not have the patience to see through the job of turning them into free countries".
The plain fact, however, is that back in March 2003, almost no Bush administration policy-maker could even imagine that yesterday the country would be in agonising debate over a conflict three years old with no end in sight - in an Iraq that even the pro-American former prime minister Iyad Allawi said was in the midst of a civil war.
When Mr Bush triumphantly proclaimed an end to the war in May 2003 from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, the Pentagon's expectation was that by the end of that year no more than 30,000 US troops would be deployed in Iraq. Today 130,000 are still there - and General George Casey, the senior US commander in the country, warned yesterday that he saw "a couple of more years of this". The war has been a drain on American blood, treasure and morale. As of yesterday, at least 2,311 US servicemen had died there, and more than 13,000 had been wounded. By the end of 2006, the conflict will have cost $320bn (£183bn).
The psychological cost is unquantifiable, but enormous. For a minority the war has brought bereavement and personal sadness. Half of all Americans know someone who has served in Iraq; some 10 per cent of them had a relative or friend who had been killed or wounded there, according to a poll by USA Today.
Mr Bush's place in history will be determined by his decision to invade. Back in March 2003, his approval ratings stood at 70 per cent. Now they have dropped to less than 40 per cent. Two-thirds of the public believes the country is "on the wrong track". Iraq sweeps every other issue off the table.
This November's mid-term elections meanwhile may well turn into a referendum on Iraq, and the Republican Party may lose control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate, conceivably both.
Even among the Republican faithful, support for Mr Bush is starting to erode. "If you demand complete victory, you'll never leave," Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican who is mulling a 2008 White House run, said yesterday.
The war, he declared, was helping to bankrupt the country. "And if you ask, are we better off, is the Middle East more stable than three years ago, the answer is, 'Absolutely not'."
- 1 No secularism please, we're British
- 2 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 3 'Drunk tanks' and minimum prices to help Britain sober up
- 4 Working as a jail torturer ruined my life
- 5 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 6 Reinstate Knox's murder charge, Italian court told
- 7 Caught in his own blast: an Iranian targeting Israel
- 1 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 2 How Koscielny became prince of the Emirates
- 3 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 4 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 5 No secularism please, we're British
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 Matthew Norman: There's always the Human Rights Act, Trevor
- 8 Special report: The hungry generation
- 9 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 10 Six Grammys, five years off: Adele puts love before career
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
No secularism please, we're British




Comments