Bush will cast Iraq in historical context

President Bush this morning will give the first of two speeches on the Iraq war that are intended to cast the conflict in broad, historical terms — an attempt to influence the debate that is set to erupt next month over the way forward.

“There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we are fighting today. But one important similarity is that at their core, they are all ideological struggles,” Mr. Bush will tell the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Mo., based on his prepared remarks.

“Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own — a harsh plan for life that crushes all freedom, tolerance and dissent.”

Ed Gillespie, counselor to the president, said that “much debate and discussion will follow” the progress report on Iraq next month and that Mr. Bush’s speeches “will provide broader context for this long-term debate.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush will address the American Legion convention in Reno, Nev.

Both speeches will focus on U.S. involvement in Asia during the past half-century.

Mr. Bush will focus on the U.S. reconstruction of Japan after World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars. Neither the war in Korea nor Vietnam ended with a clear U.S. victory, but Mr. Bush will argue that “the fruit of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent — whose people want to live in peace with America — not attack America.”

Mr. Bush also will say that if the United States had not fought in Korea and Vietnam, the Soviet Union and other communist elements “would have learned the lesson that aggression pays.”

He also will say that even though some still debate whether it was right to fight in Vietnam, there is no doubt that a hasty exit caused the deaths of many Vietnamese and Cambodians.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Mr. Bush’s attempts to compare the Iraq war to military conflicts in East Asia.

“Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history,” the Nevada Democrat said.

While there is widespread disagreement with Mr. Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq, analysts say a quick pullout would result in a bloody civil war and likely ethnic cleansing.

High-profile Democrats — including the party’s leading presidential contender, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee — also have begun framing their argument.

Both are saying that the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq has made a difference, but it’s too late. The argument is supportive of the troops’ actions, yet stands by the party’s continued calls for a withdrawal.

Mr. Bush, speaking yesterday at a summit in Quebec with the Canadian and Mexican leaders, gave a mixed assessment of the Iraqi government’s performance but acknowledged that Baghdad needs “to do more” and that the Iraqi people are frustrated with their leadership.

Story Continues →