President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq "stands as a monument to folly" to his "doctrine" of pre-emptive war, the Los Angeles Times wrote Sunday in a scathing editorial three days ahead of Iraq's power handover.
"The Iraq war was intended as a monument to his new Bush Doctrine, which also posited that the US would take what help was available from allies but would not be held back by them," the California daily wrote.
"It now stands as a monument to folly."
Instead of criticising the war, The Washington Post described the challenges facing US troops.
"For US forces, life will become more complicated but not less dangerous, as they attempt to provide security while co-ordinating with untested Iraqi leaders and armed forces," the Post said.
The Post warned that insurgents might step up attacks ahead of planned January elections, and that the United States should reassure Iraqis that "the Americans won't be leaving too soon."
The LA Times blasted the Bush administration's chief arguments for invading Iraq, saying the links made between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and the risk posed by Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction "turned out to be baseless."
Arabs see the United States as "an imperial power bent on securing a guaranteed oil supply and a base for US forces," the LA Times wrote, while "Much of the rest of the world sees a bully."
The invasion has brought "unwelcome legacies": Longer deployments for military personnel; the Abu Ghraib prison scandal; and the use of private contractors to do military work.
The United States should lobby Nato for help training Iraqi security forces, the paper said.
"But other nations will do little to help with reconstruction if Iraq remains a thinly disguised fiefdom where US companies get billion-dollar contracts and other countries are shut out," the paper wrote.
"Pre-emption is a failed doctrine," the daily concluded, saying the war "fought to remove a regime "that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.