We're in Iraq to Liberate the Iraqis. Or Are We?

There may have been a time in the beginning when average Iraqis saw us as liberators. It's a given that most Iraqis were glad to see Saddam Hussein go. But it's a fact that to this day we still don't know what the war was about. All the reasons Bush offered fell apart eventually, though a handful of conservatives will argue it indeed was about oil and American dominance, with perhaps democracy thrown in as a bone. Even the Iraqis were never really sure why we were there, and events like the revelations about Abu Ghraib created enormous ill will (and it should be noted that stories of Abu Ghraib were reaching Iraqis long before Americans learned about the photos).

Most of the major blunders of the last four years are easily traceable at this point to the inner circle of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld; Republicans in Congress played their part for four years by rubber stamping everything the president and his inner circle wanted. Rumsfeld is now gone and there'll be a new party in control of Congress this January. But we still don't know whether Bush will finally confront the fiasco he has created or give us more of the same.

But this is no longer 2003 when we first arrived; it is almost 2007 and the hour is late. We know Bush does not have a mandate at home. Here's a poll that suggests that George W. Bush does not have a mandate in Iraq (via Editor & Publisher):

Past surveys have hinted at this result, but a new poll in Iraq makes it more stark than ever: the Iraqi people want the U.S. to exit their country. And most Iraqis now approve of attacks on U.S. forces, even though 94% express disapproval of al-Qaeda.

At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S. stay.

By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left.

We've known for some time that the Sunnis would like us to leave, but now 74% of Shiites, who make up about 60% of Iraq, also want us to leave. The poll goes on to note that increasing number of Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans. The question stands: are we still seen as liberators or have we become occupiers in a foreign land with a president deluding himself about what he's trying to accomplish, if anything, at this point?

There are options if we begin to wind down. We're still seen favorably in the northern areas of Iraq where the Kurdish live. If we stay away from their urban areas, we can leave a sizable garrison to keep things from getting completely out of control; we can then perhaps leave more troops in Kuwait as a protective force, if needed for the south. But it's time to draw down.

If Bush plays double or nothing with Iraq and Iran in his final two years, he will do enormous damage to the United States. Let's hope his Republicans friends and others can prevail on him to begin repairing his failing presidency and begin undoing the damage he has done. But the signs of a turnaround are not particularly good and the American people are going to have to be patient until the checks and balances of our government can slow the damage and begin holding Bush and his reckless administration accountable. I don't favor impeachment because of the wrenching divisiveness it can cause and the essential fact that the votes don't exist in the Senate for conviction. But even the normal means of turning our government around may take two years; if that's the case, the American voters will have to finish the job in 2008—that's the reality we face.