International Herald Tribune Editorial - Bush and the bigotry of low expectations in Iraq

International Herald Tribune Editorial - Bush and the bigotry of low expectations in Iraq
Copyright by the International Herald Tribune
Published: May 7, 2007


Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President George W. Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill. It is now essential that the revised version not back away from demanding that Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, finally deliver on the crucial national reconciliation measures he has spent the last year dodging.

And it must make clear that American support for his failures - and Bush's - is fast waning.

What Maliki needs to do to slow Iraq's bloodletting is no mystery. Iraq's security forces must stop siding with the Shiite militias. Iraq's oil revenue must be apportioned fairly.

Anti-Baathist laws now used to deny Sunni Arabs employment and political opportunities must be rewritten to target only those responsible for the crimes of the Saddam Hussein era.

Without these steps, Maliki and his allies cannot even minimally claim to be a real national government. With them, there is at least a chance that Iraqis can muster the strength to contain the chaos when, as is inevitable, American forces begin to leave.

Bush acknowledges that these benchmarks are important. Yet he refuses to insist, or let Congress insist, that Baghdad achieve them or face real consequences.

Each time Baghdad fails a test, Bush lowers his requirements and postpones his target dates - the kind of destructive denial Bush called, in another context, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Consider the Baghdad security drive. Last week, The Washington Post reported that Maliki's office had helped instigate the firing of senior Iraqi security officers who moved aggressively against a powerful Shiite militia.

After betting so many American lives, the combat readiness of the U.S. Army and his own remaining credibility on this bloody push to secure the capital, it is a mystery why Bush would allow the Iraqi leader to undermine it.

Then there is the endless soap opera that is one day supposed to produce a fair share-out of Iraqi oil revenues. The Bush administration prematurely popped champagne corks in February when Maliki's cabinet agreed on a preliminary draft.

Now, in May, there is no share-out, no legislation, and even the preliminary agreement is starting to unravel. The leading Sunni Arab party in Maliki's cabinet is now threatening to withdraw its ministers, declaring that it has "lost hope" that the Iraqi leader will deal seriously with Sunni concerns.

Bush, by contrast, sees "signs of hope" in the Baghdad security situation, urges Americans to give his failed policies more time and seems offended that Congress wants to impose accountability on Baghdad and the White House.

The final version of the spending bill should include explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even if Bush won't let Congress back them up with a clear timetable for America's withdrawal.

If Maliki and Bush still don't get it, Congress will have to enact new means of enforcement, and back that up with a veto-proof majority.