***Mr Bush's speech might have passed off as an anxious leader's attempt to rally his countrymen and women to his cause, however immoral that might be, but for his vaunting of the US military might, "in every outpost around the world," that demonstrated the administration's immodest and arrogant belief that a military approach to political problems, including the current imbroglios in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the panacea for the ills of the world.***

cance for the US administration, for it was the day one year ago when the sovereignty of a sovereign country was handed over to an ex-CIA agent.

No one can fault President Bush for his current PR exercise. It was principally motivated by a somewhat misplaced perception that it was not his strategy or his Iraq policy that had gone awry, but it was his spin-masters' failure to project those in the right perspec-

amply proved is that you cannot fool all the people all the time. Most Americans have perhaps seen through their president's ruse, hence the erosion of support for Mr. Bush's Iraq campaign.

But when the president of the United States speaks, not only the Americans, but also the world at large listens. And the world was disappointed, not by what he said, but by what he did not. He was rhetoric personified, full of contra-

attacks.

He made a complete reversal of logic by stating that success in Iraq, it being the focus of his international war against terrorism, would guarantee security to the US as well as to Europe. But, the link between Iraq and US security remains as nebulous today as when it was made the rationale for launching "Operation Iraqi Freedom" more than two years ago. Even an inveterate ostrich would

sion of Iraq, Iraq had very little to do with these. In fact it is the US invasion that has engendered terrorism in a country where there was none before. It is not Iraq turning into another Afghanistan that Bush should worry about, rather, the prospect of it becoming another Vietnam that should be his main concern.

It is also difficult to accept the unbelievable argument that there is no civil war in Iraq. Much as the

THE US president's speech last Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in the light of the dragging conflict in Iraq and his dwindling approval rating at home, addressed to the American people and to the world with the US troops as a backdrop, was an attempt to assuage the American public that everything was not going badly in Iraq. One is not certain whether there were many takers for his arguments that continuing bloodshed in Iraq will ultimately be "worth it."

In fact, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's comments, "The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq. They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America," is fairly representative of the current mood in America.

The day had a special signifi-

tive that had brought his Iraq policy approval rating from 53 percent at the beginning of the war to 45 percent now.

Well, that disproves one very important assumption and proves a pithy maxim. One, that Bush's PR with respect to the Iraq war has been faulty. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. That a lie was sold to the American public to justify a blatantly unjust war, where the rationale for going into Iraq was changed more than a hundred times, could not have been possible without an effective PR campaign. Of course, the other Mr. B had much to do with motivating public opinion for Mr. Bush too. That is why the majority of the Americans supported his war in Iraq. The maxim that has been

diction, and nothing in the speech contained anything that the world had not heard before. The silence that greeted Mr. Bush's speech in the 800 soldier-filled auditorium was perhaps a resonance of the reaction around the rest of the world. Missing was an exit strategy from Iraq which everyone was eagerly waiting to hear.

So, what are the contradictions in what he said?

President Bush made as many as eight references to the September 11 attacks to restate his justification of war against Saddam, but as usual, as the Los Angeles Times noted, Bush failed to mention that the 9/11 commission found no credible evidence linking the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror

have difficulty in believing that Iraq was a threat to the US now or anytime in the recent past. Most analysts believe the threat posed to the US by al-Zarqawi is more a consequence of the 2003 invasion than a justification for it.

The president's speech was merely an exercise in after-the-fact rationalisation.

The US president wants the world to believe that there is a chance that Iraq might turn out to be another Afghanistan; meaning that there is a likelihood that forces of radicalism exemplified by the Talebans might assume predominance in Iraq, fomenting and spreading terrorism in the region. But, in spite of all the terrorist activities that were prevalent in the Middle East until before the inva-

US media might deny it, what is happening today in Iraq is a conflict between two elements within it that borders on civil war. In Iraq today, one of the indigenous parties is being represented by the US forces in its fight against the other, i.e. the insurgents, composed entirely of Sunni elements. And the recent events of May and June indicate that the Shias are no longer prepared to let the US forces do the fighting for them.

While most people wanted to hear about the exit strategy of the US government from Iraq, that it was not articulated should not surprise anybody. There has never been an Iraq strategy as such -- let alone a coherent exit strategy. The only strategy that was in the minds of the US neo-con hawks was how

to get a foothold in the oil-rich region. It was initially achieved after the first Gulf war against Iraqi, and now reinforced through its capture.

It is also no wonder that there is difference of opinion as to how long the insurgency might last. The Iraqis think that it might be ended in two years while the US thinks that somewhere up to a decade may elapse before it can be completely doused. This is a manifest indication of plans to perpetuate US presence in Iraq. The difference of opinion on the state of the insurgency is also acute within the administration itself. Despite a claim by Vice President Dick Cheney that it was in its "last throes," the commander of US Central Command, General Abizaid is of the opinion that it is anything but.

Mr. Bush's speech might have passed off as an anxious leader's attempt to rally his countrymen and women to his cause, however immoral that might be, but for his vaunting of the US military might, "in every outpost around the world," that demonstrated the administration's immodest and arrogant belief that a military approach to political problems, including the current imbroglios in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the panacea for the ills of the world.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.