Missing Monday night: an honest assessment

Missing Monday night:
an honest assessment

The most enthusiastic response to President Bush’s State of the State address Monday night came after his forceful assertion that “some may deny that the surge [of U.S. troops in Iraq] is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al-Qaida is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.”

Of course all Americans will applaud the defeat of al-Qaida. But what was missing from the other 14 paragraphs about Iraq in the president’s speech was any indication of how the United States can continue to provide the level of commitment that will be necessary to maintain today’s semblance of order in Iraq, much less vanquish al-Qaida.

What’s ahead?

The very least the president could have done in his last State of the Union address would have been to lay out an honest estimate of how many troops the next president should expect to keep in Iraq to fulfill this president’s vision of a free Iraq. More importantly, he should have addressed the level of sacrifice that will be expected from the United States military and the taxpayers who support that military.

Instead, Bush cautioned against accelerating U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, saying that would jeopardize progress achieved over the past year. He said plans have been made for 20,000 troops to come home. The surge sent 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, bringing the total there now to 158,000. An additional 28,000 are in Afghanistan, and Bush pledged 3,000 more Marines for that effort. There are already more troops in Afghanistan than at any time since the first troops were sent there in October 2001.

The president did not make a single concession to how far the war has already stretched America’s military manpower and equipment. But he couldn’t resist including a threat against neighboring Iran, which has obviously been giving support to insurgents in Iraq.

A year ago, we noted that U.S. armed forces were being worn down, and their weapons of war were being worn out. We suggested then that the administration should answer specifically how it plans to rebuild the armed forces and what that will cost, in addition to the immediate cost of pursuing the war. The administration has never given the American people even an estimate of what will be needed in the long run to meet even the best-case scenario in Iraq.

A hint of the future

Anyone looking for candor would be better off listening to what’s being said in Iraq than Washington.

Two weeks ago, the Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir, said that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012. The country won’t be able on its own to defend its borders from external threat until at least 2018, he said.

That means a significant number of foreign troops — which in the present world order means American troops — would have to be on the ground in Iraq for the next decade. We have no idea how many troops might be involved, but the Pentagon must have a pretty good idea. President Bush should have a pretty good idea.

It would have been a sign of leadership if he had forced himself to share that information the other night as he summarized the State of the Nation. It would have been painful, but it would have been a service to the people he was elected to serve and to the person who will succeed him.