State of a union in the war years

President George W. Bush gave a State of the Union speech that was confident and gracious. But on the crucial issue facing the country — the occupation of Iraq — it was also unreal

Faced with the failure to pacify Iraq and establish a culture of democracy there, he insisted that another measure of soldiers could turn the tide. "Give it a chance to work," he said. "And support our troops."

All loyal Americans wish well of our troops. The debatable question is the political objective, and whether it is a wise use of their skills and their bodies. The evidence of four years suggests that it is not.

The president is still portraying the fighting in Iraq as a part of the war on terrorism, connecting it to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to the future security of the United States.

"America is still at war," he declared, arguing that we have to "take the fight to the enemy." We believe this analysis is too simplistic. Most of those fighting us are not out to destroy America. They are out to eject us from their country. Our presence does not pacify them. It inflames them.

We believe in supporting our troops by withdrawing them from Iraq and preserving them for fights more central to the interests of the United States. The president believes otherwise, and it appears that he is not going to change his mind.

Already, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Susan Collins and Gordon Smith have deserted him, and more will do so. He should listen to them.

On domestic matters, he offered a few notable ideas. One was to make health-care benefits reportable as income, and to make the first $15,000 in premiums, paid by an employer or an individual, deductible from taxes. That way, people with no benefits could buy insurance and deduct all the premiums. It's worth consideration, although Democrats in the majority have already announced the idea dead on arrival.

On energy, the president made news by letting the words "serious challenge of global climate change" escape his lips. Finally. He suggested an increase in the fuel-economy standards for vehicles, which we support. He suggested a federal requirement for the use of renewable fuels — perhaps something like the state of Washington's requirement for biodiesel. We could support that, also.

We are less enthusiastic about the president's call to "step up domestic oil production." He did not mention the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but people here surely were thinking of it.