No matter how specific their arguments, critics of President Bush's Iraq policy frequently get tagged with simply being Bush bashers driven by partisan or ideological interests. It seems to evade the president's backers that perhaps the critics are arguing policy, not politics or personalities. Now comes the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) to expand on what the critics have been saying all along.

The war in Iraq is a distraction, a very dangerous distraction, from the legitimate war on terror. As a result of the occupation of Iraq, the United States is demonstrably less safe from the threat posed by terrorism. As Bush's latest critic, Gen. Anthony Zinni, put it, the critics aren't antiwar, they're anti-dumb-war, and Iraq is a dumb war.

The IISS is a highly regarded London think tank that each year issues a "strategic survey" of the world. Its report a year ago forecast much of what has since transpired in Iraq. In the "Strategic Survey 2003-2004," released this week, IISS scholars warn that the occupation of Iraq has become a "potent global recruitment pretext" for Al-Qaida while simultaneously fracturing the Western alliance and weakening the global effort to fight terror. Jonathan Stevenson, editor of the report, said the invasion of Iraq "damaged the war on terror, there is no doubt about that. It has strengthened rather than weakened Al-Qaida."

How strong has Al-Qaida grown? The survey estimates the terrorist group has 18,000 militants worldwide who are ready to strike at targets in the United States and Europe. The train bombing in Madrid demonstrated that Al-Qaida had "completely reconstituted" itself following the attacks in Afghanistan and the capture or death of many top leaders.

Of the continuing turmoil in Iraq, the IISS contradicts Bush's claim of an Al-Qaida link. "The efficiency of the attacks, their regularity and the speed with which they were organized in the aftermath of Saddam's fall point to predominantly Iraqi involvement," the survey says.

The IISS is not sanguine about the future in Iraq or about its effect on U.S. security. It predicts more violence ahead and warns that, "If the U.S. is seen to fail in Iraq, America's foreign policy will have to be rethought. The long-term instability of Iraq would act as a potent symbol, highlighting the limited power of the U.S. to intervene successfully against rogue states."

Earlier this week, Bush spoke to the future of Iraq before staff and students at the Army War College. He was treated respectfully, as he should have been. But a report from that same college last January treated his Iraq policy with anything but respect.

It, like the new IISS report, calls the war in Iraq a "detour," an "unnecessary preventative war" that has "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al-Qaida."

As if punctuating the IISS report, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned Wednesday that Al-Qaida is about ready to hit the United States "hard," perhaps this summer. Many experts and Washington observers, including some in the Bush administration, were skeptical of Ashcroft's announcement because it wasn't based on new information. Nor was the threat alert level for the nation raised. Nor was Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge at the news conference. The common suggestion around Washington was that the threat announcement amounted to a political performance meant to divert attention from the bad news in Iraq that has caused Bush such a sharp drop in the polls.

Nonetheless, the warning, coming on the heels of the IISS report, should alert Americans to an awful truth that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the security of this nation: The war in Iraq was unnecessary; the occupation following the war has been wholly incompetent, and, as a consequence, the United States has been made less safe, rather than more, by this "war president" and his policies.

© 2004 Star Tribune.

###