Don't Play Politics on Iraq

By Jim Marshall
Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A23


My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a 21-year-old staff
sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained Army Ranger who had left
Princeton University to volunteer for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly
recall feeling way out of step with my Ivy League colleagues.

Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time it's about Iraq
and involves some of my professional colleagues, political leaders and
activists who are carelessly using words and phrases such as "quagmire,"
"our failure in Iraq," "this is just another Vietnam," or "the Bush
administration has no plan."

I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent
contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our
progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to
reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes
and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will attribute this to a
grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more plausible explanation is simply the
tendency of our news media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans
think local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and
progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no different.

Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is a serious
problem for coalition forces because it discourages Iraqi cooperation, the
key to our ultimate success or failure, a daily determinant of life or death
for American soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now discovering
nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive devices through tips. Guess
how they discover the rest.

We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our
side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal
security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America
encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I
visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom of being
cautious about relying on American politicians to live up to their
commitments.

For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any decision to
cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that can lead to death.
Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite dishes absolutely
exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top
of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture from America -- literally.

Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and control of
Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs or benefits. Politicians
and activists in each party reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news
that is bad for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms
our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can
impose a heavy external cost.

It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step forward to secure their
own freedom. For now, responsible Democrats should carefully avoid using the
language of failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It
can be unforgivably self-fulfilling.

Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly hammer home their
support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi people secure their own freedom.
It is fine for each to contend that he or she is a better choice for
securing victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be taken
not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team or plan. Americans,
with help from commentators and others, will decide this for themselves.

Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates
should emphasize the positive aspects of their own plans for Iraq. Save the
negative attacks for the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less
likely to support the coalition effort if they think America might withdraw
following the 2004 election.

Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently
be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or
dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq
and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well
worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq,
something that could immeasurably improve our future national security.

The writer is a Democratic representative from Georgia.