E-Mail This Article to a Friend Neocon fantasies Rather than a crusade for democracy, the war in Iraq remains a tragic failure. Plus, exploiting Terri Schiavo.

THE WAR IN IRAQ is a long way from being over. Already, though, the revisionist historians of the right are going to work, portraying this grotesque misadventure as a glorious mission to bring democracy to the Middle East. Everyone hopes for a decent outcome in Iraq, both for the long-suffering people of that country and for the security interests of the rest of the world. But on this, the second anniversary of the war, it is vital to remember what really happened, and to separate stark reality from neoconservative fantasy.

As of this past Tuesday, 1524 American troops had been killed in the war, and more than 11,000 had been wounded. According to various estimates, tens of thousands of Iraqis, many of them civilians, have lost their lives as well. For what did they die? To save the world from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, and to break his regime’s ties to international terrorism, principally Al Qaeda. Those were George W. Bush’s oft-stated reasons for going to war. But as we all know, White House officials believed what they wanted to believe and said what they wanted to say. There were no WMD; nor was there an Al Qaeda connection, although there most certainly is today. Thus, in its most literal sense, the war in Iraq was a mistake and a failure, and a tragic one at that.

Then came the Iraqi election. In late January, millions of Iraqis went to the polls, displaying their blue-stained fingers as a symbol of democracy’s triumph over tyranny. It was a stirring sight, and it demonstrated that there is a real possibility of a better future for Iraq despite Bush’s arrogant, go-it-alone war. But let’s not kid ourselves. Iraq’s majority Shiite population may well choose to ally itself with the theocratic regime in Iran, itself the object of much saber-rattling on the part of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the president himself. Terrorist attacks continue. American soldiers did not fight and die for such an outcome.

Yet now the neocons are taking this many steps further. Anti-Syria demonstrations in Lebanon are attributed to Bush’s democratic crusade, even though they were clearly sparked by the assassination of Lebanon’s leading political figure, former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Bush gets credit for the improved climate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as though the most important reason for that were something other than the death of the terrorist-coddling PLO leader, Yasser Arafat. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak announces a few tentative democratic reforms; once again, Bush is hailed.

This gauzy pro-Bush analysis is ahistorical at best and dangerous at worst. War, as they say, is hell. Praising Bush for his aggression will only play to his worst instincts. If things are better in parts of the Middle East today than they were two years ago, it is despite Bush’s war-mongering, not because of it.

BARRING ANY last-minute developments by grandstanding members of Congress, it seems likely that Terri Schiavo, at long last, will die within the next week or so — if she hasn’t already passed away by the time you read this. The spectacle of elected federal officials pandering to the religious right by injecting themselves into a purely state matter has been unedifying. And though many of those who voted to move the Schiavo case into the federal courts no doubt believed they were doing the right thing — such as Representative Stephen Lynch, of Boston, and Senator Tom Harkin, of Iowa — they still managed to contribute to an unsettling sense that the quest for political advantage now takes precedence over the rule of law.

The Schiavo case was an exceedingly difficult one, but it was also a matter that had been heavily litigated and exhaustively studied over the course of many years. As best the courts have been able to determine, Schiavo had told her husband, Michael, that she would not want to be kept alive if she were ever incapacitated. And Michael, as her legal guardian, was absolutely right in insisting that her wishes be respected.

Complicating this were two extraneous factors. First, Terri Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have fought desperately to keep their daughter alive, even though she has been in a persistent vegetative state for more than 15 years. One can hardly blame the Schindlers for their emotional reaction. But it has been amplified by people like their lawyer, Barbara Weller, who has claimed publicly that Terri Schiavo is responsive and has expressed her unwillingness to die. There is nothing in the record to support such an extraordinary claim. It is directly contradicted by Dr. Jay Wolfson, a court-appointed guardian who spent a month examining her in 2002 and found her to be completely unaware of her surroundings. In this context, Weller’s statements have been both irresponsible and inflammatory.

The second factor has been the eagerness with which Republican politicians have been willing to exploit Terri Schiavo for cheap gain. Indeed, Schiavo would have died several years ago were it not for the unwarranted intervention of Florida governor Jeb Bush, a possible presidential candidate in 2008. Now he has been joined by his brother George W. Bush, as well as Senate majority leader Bill Frist, also a presidential hopeful, and House majority leader Tom DeLay, no doubt grateful for some relief from the various ethics investigations that are swirling around him. Frist, a physician, has been especially shameless, offering a completely useless long-distance diagnosis based on short video clips the Schindler family has posted on the Internet.

As if to underscore this sleazy opportunism, it was revealed this week that a Republican strategist has written a memo calling the case "a great political issue" that will excite "the pro-life base" — and that can be used against Florida senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who has opposed the exploitation of Terri Schiavo. One can only hope that the author of this memo will be identified. Ultimately, this is an intensely private matter of the sort with which families must deal every day. It should be shocking that the Republicans have been so willing to jump on such a difficult situation for their own benefit. Sadly, it isn’t.

A final point: Michael Schiavo deserves a great deal of credit for refusing to divorce Terri and for insisting that her desires be respected, despite overwhelming pressure from her parents and religious-right activists. But if she had simply made her wishes known in a living will, this entire circus could have been avoided. That’s something all of us should think about. After all, any one of us could end up in the same situation.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com