The Bush Administration has transformed the War on Terrorism into the War in Iraq. Whether this was the right choice is the central issue in deciding whether President Bush deserves a second term.

From the beginning the Bush administration made the case for the war in Iraq by suggesting Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for 9/11. This case is fundamental to public support for the War, with 70% of Americans believing that Hussein was personally involved in planning 9/11 and 43% believing that the hijackers themselves were Iraqis, even though they were nearly all Saudi.

The public’s misperception can be directly linked to the Administration’s statements. On 3/6/03, President Bush stated, “He (Hussein) has trained and financed Al Qaeda-type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” Vice-President Cheney repeatedly made the boldest claims for such a link, describing Iraq as, “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11 (9/03/03).”

But, according to the 9/11 Commission and even Colin Powell, this linkage exists only in the minds of the Administration. The bipartisan 9/11 commission reported on 6/16/04 that there was “no credible evidence” that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and “no collaborative relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The commission added, “At one point Osama bin Laden was actually supporting anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq.” Nevertheless, VP Cheney continues to ignore the truth, stating on 6/18/04, that the evidence was “overwhelming” that Al Qaeda and Hussein had a relationship.”

Given that Iraq did not support Al Qaeda or 9/11, the Bush Administration is left with another argument that is less easily refuted but no less misguided: Al Qaeda only respects strength, so we must fight them in Iraq or we’ll have to fight them in America. Now the most basic problem with this theory is that Al Qaeda terrorists are not in Iraq. All experts agree that the Al Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for 9/11 are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The insurgents we are fighting in Iraq are a completely new group of Iraqi nationalists, not Al Qaeda. So fighting terrorism in Iraq is a bit like looking for Yankee fans in Baltimore; you’re just barking up the wrong tree.

Nonetheless, George W. Bush says, “See, we don't create enemies and terrorists by fighting back; we defeat the terrorists by fighting back.” This argument is frighteningly inaccurate. Certainly, terrorists must be fought with every tool at our disposal. But there were not large groups of terrorists and insurgents killing Americans in Iraq before the war. Today we are fighting many such groups. And as a result, our coalition in the War on Terror has weakened. According to the Pew Center, our allies believe the War on Terror has been hobbled by Iraq, and in key ‘anti-terror’ ally states such as Pakistan and Jordan far more people now have favorable views of Bin Laden than they do of the U.S. (http://people-press.org/pgap/).

Now, Americans must ask ourselves, can the President lead us to victory in Iraq? Unfortunately, news about the potential for democracy as well as a US exit is increasingly discouraging – despite the best efforts of our military. Our soldiers are being asked to do an impossible job: kill insurgents without turning the population more against America and the new Iraqi government.

Further evidence of deterioration came from the Bush administration itself this week, when a new report claimed that the most likely outcome in Iraq is more of the same or worse, civil war. Our generals are about fed-up. Retired Gen. William Odom stated, "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al Qaeda, it's worse -- he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." Similarly, Retired Gen. Joseph Hoare, former head of the U.S. Central Command stated, "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous…. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong (http://www.guardian.co.uk 9/16/04).” Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, Marine commander in Fallujah, recently told the Washington Post our efforts have only created more insurgents.

The Iraq War has had enormous consequences: over 1,000 US soldiers killed, over 7,000 wounded, over $200 billion spent (more than $1000 per US taxpayer) and a resurgent Al Qaeda ignored in Afghanistan. We were led into this war for reasons we now know to be false. Our President has made an open-ended commitment of our lives and treasure for a cause his own experts believe is likely already lost. Is this a president who deserves a second term?

Heather Heckel and Jim Josefson are Assistant Professors of Political Science.