Time has now become an enemy, almost as threatening as the insurgents, to the President’s ability to achieve a victory. Our nation does not have much patience for fighting wars which are not discernibly winnable in a relatively short period of time. With congressional elections next year, anti-war sentiment could easily be expressed by voters with the result that the Republicans’ overwhelming control in both houses could be sharply eroded. Even a Democratic party with no vision of its own could be the beneficiary of hostility toward the war.

Thus, the President has to continuously assure the American people about the status of the war against insurgents and Iraqi nation building to keep his support from sliding further. Against this objective, Tuesday evening’s speech was a respectable effort of dealing with a very difficult issue. Bush was correct in not setting a date for the Untied States’ exit from Iraq. However, notwithstanding the President’s optimistic assessments, the war against the insurgents does not appear to be winnable in a matter of months. Nor does it seem likely that a democratic government in Iraq can be in place, presiding over a secure nation, in the foreseeable future.

One of the most vexing questions for many Americans is why exactly are we fighting, and why so many Americans are dying or being wounded in this far away place called Iraq. In the days before the war, the answer was because of weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein had. Though the President may have been correct in relying on that rationale based upon the intelligence then available to him, the evidence failed to support that explanation. The second rationale was that Saddam Hussein was a horror to his people and a threat to his neighbors. That was absolutely correct, but Bush’s foes contend that we aren’t forcefully removing every terrible despot around the world.

The rationale given in the President’s speech is that Iraq is the critical battleground in a war against Islamic terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is no doubt that the fundamentalist Jihadists who would destroy freedom and democracy in the west in and in the Middle East are flowing into Iraq to fight the United States. The President’s opponents claim that we are responsible for creating the terrorists by our presence. This is unfair. The terrorists were mobilized even before we toppled Saddam. It’s better that this war not be fought on American soil.

The question still is whether the 9/11 rationale is enough for the American people to accept the casualties and costs of the war. Are we willing to become modern day crusaders intending on beating back the potential threat to our way of life from Middle East terrorists. The jury is still out on that question, with the answer depending on how many casualties we suffer.

There is, however, another justification for the war which the President didn’t raise in his speech, has never spoken about publicly, but must be an important part of the discussions at the White House. That is oil.

The Chinese bid for Unocal has underscored what has been obvious for some time. The United States’ economy and our way of life depend upon oil—sixty percent of which is imported. Faced with a surge in demand from China and India and the disruption of supplies to the U.S. because of political issues in Venezuela, Nigeria and elsewhere, we must ensure that the flow of oil on the world market continues from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq and leave chaos behind, the Jihadists will no doubt destabilize Saudi Arabia and other gulf producers. We cannot afford to let that happen.

The time has come for the President to state publicly what most of Washington has long been discussing. The Iraqi war is about oil and its continued flow to the United States. This is something the American people can understand.