A Bad Remake of Vietnam?
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are growing worried about the war’s progress. But Democrats and GOP moderates are clueless about how to challenge the White House
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
March 28 — Watching the official military briefings is like living in a parallel universe. It’s the same news but with a different spin.
TO HEAR THE generals, the war is on schedule. There are no surprises. A film clip shows coalition forces handing candy to Iraqi children. Change the channel to get the perspective of reporters on the ground and the images are quite different. Fighting vehicles stuck in the mud; angry Iraqis thrusting their fists at the invaders; humanitarian aid stalled because of guerilla fighting.
Nearly every prediction about this war has proved wrong. Americans were led to believe it would be over in a weekend, that U.S. air power would “shock and awe” the enemy, that Iraqi troops would lay down their arms and civilians would welcome us as conquering heroes. Instead we’re embroiled in a conflict that looks like a bad remake of Vietnam with an enemy that fights in civilian dress. The bravado of a week ago is gone. “It’s out of our hands,” sighs a White House aide. In an echo of Vietnam, military leaders say they are hamstrung by the rules of engagement. It’s a tough sell to a 21-year-old and even his commander that the political cost of shooting people who may or may not turn out to be civilians is too high. “It’s the price you pay when you’re a superpower going up against a fourth-rate military power,” says a Senate Democrat. “You have a higher standard to uphold.”
This is the battle plan that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered. He overruled the Joint Chiefs who wanted a ground force twice the size of what Rumsfeld thought was necessary. Now the retired generals providing round-the-clock color commentary are questioning Rumsfeld’s judgment. They’re speaking for their buddies in the gulf who are furious at Rumsfeld for sticking them out there without adequate backup. In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld clung to his contention that these are the ordinary ups and downs of military conflict, and there is no need for alarm. Lawmakers were not satisfied. “He’s never given an informative briefing,” says a Senate Democrat. “I don’t expect him to give away operational detail, but he could give us some added value above what we see on CNN. It doesn’t help the level of trust.”
Policing postwar Iraq will take tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars, and Islamic extremists could be shooting at us from rooftops for years. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, who heads the United Nations Foundation, the operation funded by Ted Turner, calls the terrain ahead “a big no man’s land.” The United Nations will play a role in the immediate postwar humanitarian relief, but after that it’s anybody’s guess what will happen. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has tabled a resolution that would allow the United Nations to resume Iraq’s oil-for-food program. The French and the Russians don’t like the resolution because they think it legitimizes a war they regard as illegal.
The skirmish is a sign of what lies ahead. The hawks in the administration want American and British companies to rebuild Iraq. The State Department favors a broader U.N. role. Secretary of State Colin Powell testified on Capitol Hill about the importance of international involvement to overcome the stigma of America as an occupying power. Peacekeeping and nation-building loom as much harder tasks than the military takeover, and that’s been hard enough. The Bush administration envisions giant corporations operating in Iraq. But Wirth questions the wisdom of bringing American nationals into the country. “It’s a hostile environment,” he says. “Isn’t every one of them a walking target? When they start blowing up individual Americans, we’ll scurry out of there at high speed.”
The United Nations has no experience in rebuilding a country the size of Iraq, and Kofi Annan has to be careful about looking like he’s Bush’s toady. This could be a job nobody wants. If the miscalculations that got us to this point are any indication, the Bush administration’s dreams about democratizing the Middle East could turn into a nightmare. After steadfastly refusing to put a price tag on the war or its immediate aftermath, Bush finally asked Congress early this week for $75 billion, a sum everybody knows is a fraction of the eventual cost.
Advertisement
Congress will vote every penny for the war, but Democrats dealt the White House a blow when they teamed up with a handful of moderate Republicans to cut Bush’s proposed tax cut from $727 billion to $350 billion. It’s a pyrrhic victory because when the Senate bill is reconciled with the more generous House version, most of the money will almost certainly be restored. Democrats are clueless about how to challenge Bush. Voting for half a massive tax break instead of the whole thing isn’t a winning message. “WE’RE SLIGHTLY MODERATING THE ADMINISTRATION’S EXCESSES doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker,” says a Democratic aide. GOP moderates aren’t faring much better. If past history is any guide, they will capitulate and Bush will get what he wants.
The variable is the war and how Bush fares politically. Americans have not faltered in their support for the president, but Bush will have to do a better job of bolstering the nation’s resolve if the military part of this invasion is not concluded soon. As the guys on the ground say, the only way home is through Baghdad
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are growing worried about the war’s progress. But Democrats and GOP moderates are clueless about how to challenge the White House
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
March 28 — Watching the official military briefings is like living in a parallel universe. It’s the same news but with a different spin.
TO HEAR THE generals, the war is on schedule. There are no surprises. A film clip shows coalition forces handing candy to Iraqi children. Change the channel to get the perspective of reporters on the ground and the images are quite different. Fighting vehicles stuck in the mud; angry Iraqis thrusting their fists at the invaders; humanitarian aid stalled because of guerilla fighting.
Nearly every prediction about this war has proved wrong. Americans were led to believe it would be over in a weekend, that U.S. air power would “shock and awe” the enemy, that Iraqi troops would lay down their arms and civilians would welcome us as conquering heroes. Instead we’re embroiled in a conflict that looks like a bad remake of Vietnam with an enemy that fights in civilian dress. The bravado of a week ago is gone. “It’s out of our hands,” sighs a White House aide. In an echo of Vietnam, military leaders say they are hamstrung by the rules of engagement. It’s a tough sell to a 21-year-old and even his commander that the political cost of shooting people who may or may not turn out to be civilians is too high. “It’s the price you pay when you’re a superpower going up against a fourth-rate military power,” says a Senate Democrat. “You have a higher standard to uphold.”
This is the battle plan that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered. He overruled the Joint Chiefs who wanted a ground force twice the size of what Rumsfeld thought was necessary. Now the retired generals providing round-the-clock color commentary are questioning Rumsfeld’s judgment. They’re speaking for their buddies in the gulf who are furious at Rumsfeld for sticking them out there without adequate backup. In a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld clung to his contention that these are the ordinary ups and downs of military conflict, and there is no need for alarm. Lawmakers were not satisfied. “He’s never given an informative briefing,” says a Senate Democrat. “I don’t expect him to give away operational detail, but he could give us some added value above what we see on CNN. It doesn’t help the level of trust.”
Policing postwar Iraq will take tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars, and Islamic extremists could be shooting at us from rooftops for years. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, who heads the United Nations Foundation, the operation funded by Ted Turner, calls the terrain ahead “a big no man’s land.” The United Nations will play a role in the immediate postwar humanitarian relief, but after that it’s anybody’s guess what will happen. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has tabled a resolution that would allow the United Nations to resume Iraq’s oil-for-food program. The French and the Russians don’t like the resolution because they think it legitimizes a war they regard as illegal.
The skirmish is a sign of what lies ahead. The hawks in the administration want American and British companies to rebuild Iraq. The State Department favors a broader U.N. role. Secretary of State Colin Powell testified on Capitol Hill about the importance of international involvement to overcome the stigma of America as an occupying power. Peacekeeping and nation-building loom as much harder tasks than the military takeover, and that’s been hard enough. The Bush administration envisions giant corporations operating in Iraq. But Wirth questions the wisdom of bringing American nationals into the country. “It’s a hostile environment,” he says. “Isn’t every one of them a walking target? When they start blowing up individual Americans, we’ll scurry out of there at high speed.”
The United Nations has no experience in rebuilding a country the size of Iraq, and Kofi Annan has to be careful about looking like he’s Bush’s toady. This could be a job nobody wants. If the miscalculations that got us to this point are any indication, the Bush administration’s dreams about democratizing the Middle East could turn into a nightmare. After steadfastly refusing to put a price tag on the war or its immediate aftermath, Bush finally asked Congress early this week for $75 billion, a sum everybody knows is a fraction of the eventual cost.
Advertisement
Congress will vote every penny for the war, but Democrats dealt the White House a blow when they teamed up with a handful of moderate Republicans to cut Bush’s proposed tax cut from $727 billion to $350 billion. It’s a pyrrhic victory because when the Senate bill is reconciled with the more generous House version, most of the money will almost certainly be restored. Democrats are clueless about how to challenge Bush. Voting for half a massive tax break instead of the whole thing isn’t a winning message. “WE’RE SLIGHTLY MODERATING THE ADMINISTRATION’S EXCESSES doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker,” says a Democratic aide. GOP moderates aren’t faring much better. If past history is any guide, they will capitulate and Bush will get what he wants.
The variable is the war and how Bush fares politically. Americans have not faltered in their support for the president, but Bush will have to do a better job of bolstering the nation’s resolve if the military part of this invasion is not concluded soon. As the guys on the ground say, the only way home is through Baghdad
