Critics of American policy and involvement in strife-torn Iran continue to emphasize United States errors in action and judgment while regarding the Iraqis as hapless victims of circumstance, totally at the mercy of the troops we have sent to help them survive the Saddam Hussein era and start anew.

Critics of American policy and involvement in strife-torn Iran continue to emphasize United States errors in action and judgment while regarding the Iraqis as hapless victims of circumstance, totally at the mercy of the troops we have sent to help them survive the Saddam Hussein era and start anew.

Let’s not be so quick to let the Iraqi leaders off the hook. They have done a miserable job of doing what they must do to create better times.

A recent New York Times editorial, “The endgame in Iraq,” spotlighted the situation as well as any source has when it declared:

“Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the new government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror.”

The George W. Bush administration must stop daydreaming about what is happening and what could lie ahead and openly acknowledge the desperation of the situation. Credit is due for pushing in the right direction by trying to get responsible people to act more responsibly. But stronger pressure needs to be applied to force meaningful developments. Unless drastic changes are forced soon, Iraq, despite the White House’s best efforts, will become, as the New York Times says, “something no (American) parent should be asked to risk a soldier son or daughter to protect.”

Major Shiite leaders have been hostile and vituperative about American involvement. It’s always us, never them. Says the Times:

“It was chilling to read Edward Wong’s recent interview with the Iraqi prime minister : during which (Prime Minister) Jaafari sat in the palace where he now makes his home, complained about the Americans and predicted that the sectarian militias currently terrorizing Iraqi civilians could be incorporated into an army and police. The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.

“The kind of broadly inclusive government that Ambassador Kalilzad is trying to bring about offers the only hope that Iraq can make a successful transition from the terrible mess it is in now to the democracy that we all hoped would emerge after Saddam Hussein’s downfall. It is also the only way to redeem the blood that has been shed by Americans and Iraqis alike.”

The Bush administration keeps insisting that Iraq will become more democratic and prosperous because of American intervention. Michael R. Adamson of History News Service comments: “What he (Bush) has in mind are the remarkable changes in Germany and Japan after World War II because of American aid to those countries.” Adds Adamson:

“Unfortunately for Bush’s reasoning, favorable conditions like those after World War II have never existed in Iraq. U.S. military forces, private contractors, aid workers and others operate under conditions of ‘high military threat,’ just as their counterparts did for two decades in South Vietnam. That never was the case after World War II.”

Germans and Japanese worked WITH Americans in that reconstruction period. In Iraq, there is no end in sight for the constant conflict. If this situation is not improved within a reasonable period, the United States needs to re-evaluate its commitment and face reality.