Bush Embraces Murtha -- And Declares Victory
For all the rhetoric about the need to stay the course, what strikes me most about Bush's Iraq speech is his embrace of Jack Murtha's basic proposal to redeploy US forces so that they can focus on fighting terrorists first and foremost. The only major difference between the two is that Murtha argues that we need to redeploy our forces because we have failed in Iraq, while Bush argues that we can do so because we're succeeding.
The most important statement in Bush's speech was this one:
... as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change. We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide, to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists. We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.
Here's the essence of Bush's drawndown strategy: as Iraqi forces take over responsibility for fighting the insurgency and become the primary means for ensuring law and order, the American forces can limit their mission to countering the terrorists in Iraq. That doesn't require 150,000 troops -- or even 80-100,000. It's something that can be done with far fewer troops.
That's exactly what Murtha proposed when he argued for redeploying US forces. As part of this redeployment, Murtha proposed the deployment of an "over-the-horizon" contingent of Marines. The main difference is that Murtha would deploy these forces in Kuwait, while Bush wants to maintain them in Iraq. But that, it seems to me, is a tactical difference, not a strategic one.
So what's the problem with Bush's approach? He assumes that Iraqi security forces can deal with the insurgency and keep law and order (Murtha, of course, assumes no such thing). But for all the rosy statistics Bush cited to back up this assumption, he's likely to be wrong. Not only do Iraqi security forces lack the skills and training to get the job done (as James Fallows has documented), but there can be no such thing as an Iraqi security force until there is such a thing as Iraq. Instead of a single Iraq, however, there is today a deeply divided country. And unless the Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni political leaders find a way to create a legitimate and unified Iraq, no amount of training is going to create an effective set of security forces.
Yet, on this central question of how Iraq can emerge from 32 months of chaos as a single, unified country, both Bush and his "National Strategy for Victory" were noticeably silent. Could it be because they don't have an answer?
Mr. Daalder,
I must say, this is a rather imaginative misreading of both Bush and Murtha.
Bush proposes moving US forces out of Iraqi cities, into other locations in Iraq, after those cities are pacified and Iraqi forces take over the major responibility for policing and securing those cities. This seems to be an extention of his "as Iraq stands up, we will stand down" position, and represents no real change in his approach.
It also has the result that after the redeployment, Iraq will still be occupied - just not in its urban centers.
Murtha proposes moving US forces out of Iraq entirely, and doing so immediately, so long the redeployment can be carried out consistent with the safety of the troops. Murtha says we must do this before the December 15 elections. And his overriding point is that we must end the occupation of Iraq:
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation.
To describe Bush's position, therefore, as an "embrace of Jack Murtha's basic proposal" is an egregious mischaracterization. You are right to note that Bush believes Iraqi security forces can eventually perform the task he envisions for them, while Murtha makes no such assumption. But it is in part because of their differences on this point that Murtha has put forward such aradically different proposal.
It really takes a lot of intellectual effort to miss the obvious point that Murtha is proposing to get out of Iraq now, ragardless of the state of play in Iraq's cities, and independently of any conditions placed on making progress against the insurgency.
Of course, the distinction between tactics and strategy is a vague and relative one. Adopting Murtha's approach might not, of course, represent a change in US global strategy. But it surely would represent a very major change in our approach to Iraq.
December 1, 2005 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I may, Dan K, I think you miss the major point of the peice. What I believe Mr. Daalder is pointing out is that the Bush speech is largely a rhetorical cover for admitting to roughly the same policy as Murtha demanded. No, the rhetoric does not exactly match the Murtha plan, but it is quite a divergence from the "stay the course and that's it" rhetoric of even a week ago. It is a collosal reversal which bears a striking resemblance to a withdrawl. That, I am thinking, is the point.
December 1, 2005 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If the criteria is Iraqi force readiness, all I can say after talking to US troops on the ground is get comfortable for a long stay in Iraq" Time Magazine's Michael War on MSNBC
Moreover get comfortable fighting for an Iraqi state, as R. Dreyfus puts it, as the praetorian guard of Shiite Islamofacism.
Iraq is not Kuwait and Bush has not embraced Murtha but made a fool of Daalder.
December 1, 2005 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forecasts for the American Expedition to Iraq
Defense and the National Interest:
Let’s admit the obvious. In the immortal words of the Emperor Hirohito, "the war situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage."
How to Exit: important lesson from the Athenians at Syracuse
The Syracusans were already preparing their surrender when they unexpectedly received reinforcements from Corinth and Sparta, commanded by Gylippus . … This was the decisive moment: it was now obvious that the Athenians could not invest Syracuse, which would always be able to obtain supplies. …
Nicias was unable to formulate a real response. … He now concluded that it was best to break off the siege. It was a disgrace, but there was still an opportunity to minimize the losses. …
Unfortunately, during the night of 27 August 413, when the Athenians were supposed to sail away, there was a lunar eclipse, which Nicias thought was a very bad omen. He ordered to stay another month.
It became almost immediately apparent that this was a serious mistake. The Syracusans now started to block the entrance of the Great Harbor. The Athenians tried to break out, but were defeated in the final naval engagement. Now, finally, Nicias decided to leave his position. In fact, almost everything was lost, because the Athenians had no ships to return home. …
This was the end of the Sicilian expedition, and the beginning of the end of Athens itself . Those survivors who belonged to the Athenian alliance, the Delian League, were sold as slaves. The Athenians were forced to work in a stone quarry, where they died from malnutrition and exposure.
http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syracuse/siege.html
After the Athenians realized they were defeated at Syracuse and had to run, they lingered to discuss the details. This confidence – that they had ample time -- was unwarranted. Their enemies blockaded the harbor. All that remained was death in battle or capture, followed by slow death in the quarries.
We have made mistakes in Iraq on every level: strategic, tactical, and operational.
Fortunately, we still have an opportunity to exit with minimal losses. I recommend that we take it. Let’s not copy the optimistic arrogance of the Athenians at Syracuse.
After the Athenians realized they were defeated at Syracuse and had to run, they lingered to discuss the details. This confidence – that they had ample time -- was unwarranted. Their enemies blockaded the harbor. All that remained was death in battle or capture, followed by slow death in the quarries. We have made mistakes in Iraq on every level: strategic, tactical, and operational. Fortunately, we still have an opportunity to exit with minimal losses. I recommend that we take it. Let’s not copy the optimistic arrogance of the Athenians at Syracuse.
December 1, 2005 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
<i>What I believe Mr. Daalder is pointing out is that the Bush speech is largely a rhetorical cover for admitting to roughly the same policy as Murtha demanded. No, the rhetoric does not exactly match the Murtha plan, but it is quite a divergence from the "stay the course and that's it" rhetoric of even a week ago. It is a collosal reversal which bears a striking resemblance to a withdrawl. That, I am thinking, is the point.</i>
I simply don't see this. I wish Bush had undertaken a collosal reversal, or even a little one, and there were suggestings prior to the speech that he was going to change course in some significant way. But in fact, he has chosen to stay the course.
The message of Bush's speech is: We do have a strategy for victory; it is the same strategy that we have been following all along; it is working; we are winning; we will gradually delegate more responsibility to the Iraqis as they become capable of assuming those responsibilities; until such time as they can assume those responsibilities, we are sticking it out; and we will leave Iraq only when we are done and have achieved a total victory.
The only real change is that Bush and the White House have undertaken a new public relations offensive to sell the same old policy, and as part of this effort have assembled testimonials form soldiers and commanders in Iraq to convince us they are behind the Bush plan.
I really can't see how one could describe Bush's approach as "roughly the same policy Murtha demanded." The policies are not even close.
December 1, 2005 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gilbert Achar's critiques for instance, compelling as they may be, fall to the same problem. It is almost unnatural to advocate a solution that frankly admits to failure, that touts itself as least failure, as they all must if they are to be real and worthy of serious consideration.
Here's one I found that doesn't. In fact, its the only one, I have found..make no mistake, the Regis Debray scenario is here and now...
Forecasts for the American Expedition to Iraq
By Fabius Maximus - DNI.net
November 30, 2005
What comes next in Iraq? Here are some straight-line extrapolations. Nothing certain, but these seem like good bets.
1. American public support for the Iraq War has evolved to the tipping point -- the critical level at which mainstream politicos move to explicit opposition. In this sense Iraq is a second Vietnam: a foreign war in which a US President arrogantly attempts to outlast strongly-rooted local opposition.
2. The US will begin a major withdrawal of its forces, probably in the first half of 2006. The key election date is not December 17 (Iraq’s Parliament), but November 4, 2006 (US Congress).
3. Once we begin large-scale withdrawals, probably also relocating our remaining forces to bases in the Iraq deserts, our influence in Iraq will rapidly disappear.
4. The Iraq "National" governing structure will not long survive our departure, as they lack sufficient loyal troops to keep them in power. The ethnic militias pretending to be parts of the Iraq Army will revert to their true roles, serving local, ethnic, or sectarian interests.
5. Power will move to regional leaders with armed militias. Many previously powerful political and religious leaders will find themselves marginalized, as ethnic and religious hierarchies adjust to accommodate upstarts commanding young men with guns.
6. Neither Sunni nor Shiite Arab militia leaders have any need for our support, nor want foreign infidel armies on their soil. The Kurds will no longer need us. Hence all parties will call for rapid US withdrawal of forces once we become “lame ducks” in Iraq. This will remove any remaining support for the Iraq Expedition among global governments and the US public. Combined military action against Coalition forces is possible should we linger too long.
What can we expect in Iraq after the Coalition exits?
Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave her to anarchy.
Gandhi, May 1942
December 1, 2005 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it matters, but I believe I called this one:
In response to the thread “Re: Stay The Course....NOT” on 11/29 I wrote:
The Administration is going to do the exact same thing they did with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. They will criticize and vilify the Democrats ideas(to start drawing down troops) and then when it's unavoidable, claim the idea as their own. It worked then and I don't see why it won't work for them this time too
December 1, 2005 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth is a tough sell.
That's why Brookings Policy Peddlers get paid the Big Bucks.
They Died in Vain III
Safer Today?
By Jack Shanahan, VADM, USN (Ret.)
November 29, 2005
Originally published in the Daytona Beach News-Journal
Oct 21, 2005 [Re-printed with permission of the author]
Some years ago a U.S. Navy squadron of destroyers was moving south in formation off the coast of southern California. If memory serves me, it was off Point Conception where the flagship ran aground and the other destroyers followed, resulting in a colossal maritime stupidity. Why? All ships "stayed the course". Sound familiar? In a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy on Thursday 6 October, the President said, "This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve."
The Bush Administration is resolved to stay the course in Iraq when the situation in that land of chaos demands a "change of course" before our own ship of state flounders on the rocks of a failed policy.
Our government structure is based on a system of checks and balances. It is way past time for the legislative branch of the government to put a check on the Administration's flawed Iraqi policy of staying the course. Lieutenant General Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), of the Washington, D.C. office of the Hudson Institute and others have called for the removal of U.S. forces from Iraq as rapidly as possible. He puts it this way. "We have failed". "The issue is how high a price we're going to pay
December 1, 2005 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The big difference is that Murtha advocates sending a clear message to Iraqis that we do not intend to occupy their country, while Bush refuses to send such a message. From the response of the insurgency each time Bush refuses to do this, it is clear to me that Iraqis read this refusal the same way I do: Bush does not intend to leave. That is, the Bush war council intends to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq on the model of Okinawa. I believe this was the intent all along, and nothing I've seen so far has persuaded me to change this belief. I believe this administration decided we needed an "Okinawa" in the Middle East, and Iraq was selected as the (mistakenly) obvious choice due to its weakened status.
If you take the Marine Corp link to Okinawa and click on "Marines in Okinawa" (in the right-hand column), you will download a slide show that includes a map detailing the importance of the "strategic location" of this military presence in the Pacific. Then imagine such a map showing the importance of the "strategic location" of Iraq to that area of the world.
December 1, 2005 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also must express dismay at the alacrity with which Daalder tries to tie Murtha's proposal to Bush's baloney. Clearly Murtha is advocating a milestone change in American policy. If Bush is changing anything, when will we perceive it? I see, when the Iraqi security situation improves. Mr.Daalder who has written calling for more time, more patience...after all he sees small signs of improvements (as does Bush, NOT Murtha) does not like the situation he is in...agreeing with the Bush misleaders when the rational discussion has apparently past him by. It will be interesting to watch him try to dance back into the discussion...after all what is the value of a pundit with nothing to add to the serious discussion.
December 1, 2005 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Containment is a firewall, that is we still choke on the toxic smoke, now and again. We are inevitably screwed because the world is alot bigger than many Americans, including policy makers, tend to realize. 9/11 is not just an old newsstory or an excuse for Bush, but a milestone into an inevitable conflict that has been playing on the worldstage before America got there. There is no way out of American involvement in the Middle East. We got sucked up into it via historical precedent, socio-cultural context and technological development. And Bush and The Texas Oil Mafia got us stuck in one deep mudhole on the geo-political landscape while going apeshit over the money trees that bloom on that side of the planet.
The only misreading is the one about Murtha's intent. Listen to the congressman, carefully, remembering that the policies on Iraq, like proactive policies in general, move in fits, starts, and contingencies. And that Bush is not wrong in pointing out the potential of an international terror regime that has no qualms about the destruction of The West, even as he uses it because it's something to use. Don't matter who started it by now. The boys used to call it "doin' a lateral." Yeah, I'm that old.
December 1, 2005 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
In many ways, I agree that the administration is moving toward the reality of the Murtha proposal in rhetoric, if not in reality. The reality of the Murtha proposal is that we make it clear to the Iraqis that we are not going to fight their civil war for them, and that at this point, our primary concern has to be the safety of our troops. Since they are not safe driving around in a country that we would like to think we were trying to help, then we should safely remove them to some other place "over the horizon." The Bush rhetoric is moving quickly in this direction, but the big difference is that according to the closest thing to a timetable that Bush is willing to discuss, there will be at least 100,000 troops in Iraq a year from now and for the forseeable future. These troop levels cannot and should not be called a withdrawal by anybody. Once again, the media and the American people are falling for a Bush lie. A year from now, I imagine I will still be protesting the war, and Bush will be claiming credit for a "withdrawal" of one-third of our troops! One can only hope that we will have at least restored a representative government in the House by that point to start the process of re-establishing democracy in America.
peace,
jim
December 1, 2005 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Murtha is "channeling" the "non-civilian" Pentagon - the guy visits wounded soldiers ( not as a photo-op ) and has 40 years of being an advocate for the military.
What he is saying is that the administration has drifted into a stage of "drinking the coolaid" that is destructive of the armed forces.
The spin that he is advocating "immediate" withdrawl is just that - pathetic spin.
We can either lose in Iraq with an army, or we can lose Iraq with a broken army. Its our choice.
The only way to get through the bubble now that Rove is distracted is to hit the donkeys over the head with a 2X4.
God bless him - he knew he would be attacked as a coward - but went ahead anyway.
This is what our Republic has come to.
December 1, 2005 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do we really want here? We want proxies for American forces that will fight hard against people we think need killing.
Now suppose we fully train the Iraqi army and it manages to stay together and support a "coalition" government.
Why would we think that army would be a satisfactory proxy for ours?
Iraqis, I am sure, do not have the same attitude towards insurgents/Jihadists/Islamists. They may love some, hate others, etc., but for sure they don't share our attitudes.
It is stupid, incredibly stupid, to think that this end state represents some sort of "victory" over the Islamists. We will have converted a repressive, secular state into a weak state that will have to look for as many friends as possible just to survive. I see Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad opening offices as soon as we leave. Different parts of the country, of course, but that hardly matters.
December 1, 2005 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Queada was finished before the Iraq war. The Jihadis were at a dead end and the "genius" of Bin Laden was to trigger the Bush "war on terror". The overwhelming majority of Muslims realise that the Jihadi "vision" is a dead end.
Our presence in Iraq is a great gift to the Jihadis.
Our departure will cause the ordinary Sunni to stop supporting the Jihadi slaughter. Will it result in a stable, democratic Iraq ? Probably not. But the continued presence of the "anti-bodies", guarantees a descent into chaos.
Sometimes there are no good solutions.
December 1, 2005 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Bush, it's all about rhetoric. The simple fact that they've been brought kicking and screaming to the podium to discuss withdrawl means that withdrawl will happen. Every politician needs to backpedal from time to time, but if you watch the Bush Administration in the past year ~ Social Security is a good example, Brownie is another ~ once they've admitted even one word of an opposing position into the discussion, the whole lot of them fold like a house of cards.
December 1, 2005 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going on his previous record, Bush's talk is just talk. It's meant to make a political point, and any relationship to reality will only emerge in retrospect. I'm not betting that the relationship will be a close one.
Here's another point. If Bush or his administration is planning a withdrawal, who would be willing to be that they would be capable of implementing it?
Remember Hurricane Katrina.
December 2, 2005 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The most unfortunate situation into which a State can fall is that when neither peace can be accepted nor war can be continued. But into such a situation the State can only fall if it has followed a clumsy and mistaken policy and if it over-rated its own forces" - Machiavelli.
Ironically I came across that quote recently in Kurt Von Schuschnigg's Austrian Requiem (his memoir of being Austrian premier at the time of the Anschluss).
Schuschnigg quoted it in late 1943 in reference, of course, to Nazi Germany, but (arguably apart from the notion the US forces were over-rated) it is notably apposite today.
December 2, 2005 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
very senior republican neo cons are saying, off the record, that bush will stay with what he thinks is necessary to win, even if they lose overwhelmingly in the mid terms. he is determined and will not back down, regardless. the drawdown will be minimalist and window dressing. he does not want to be accused of retreating prematurely and is not interested in what outsiders say, even in his own party. he thinks he will be vindicated in time but maybe not by next november. these republican neo cons, names you would all recognize, are convinced of this.
December 2, 2005 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the Sept. 27 Charlie Rose Show, interviewing New Yorker editor David Remnick, Rose brought up the question of what the United States should do in Iraq. Should we "get out" – or, as Remnick so delicately put it, should we "bolt"? Here was how Remnick ended their discussion, while talking about those who had written on Iraq for his magazine:
"There's Jon Lee Anderson and George Packer and Sy Hersh and Rick [Hertzberg], they all look at it from different angles. But I think all of those people would agree – I don't know about Sy – would agree that an immediate American withdrawal just, you know, just pick up your skirts and run, would not lead to a happy situation in the short term or the long."
Pick up your skirts and run. Forget the Republicans, that more or less sums up the state of mainstream liberal opinion on Iraq just two months ago. Only that recently "withdrawal" was still synonymous with cowardice, or, in a classic phrase of the Vietnam era (that like so many others has taken an extra bow in our own moment), "cutting and running." Withdrawal from Iraq was a subject for the margins and the political Internet (as well as secret Pentagon planning); certainly not something to be bandied about in Congress or taken seriously by the mainstream media. What a difference a few weeks can make – a few weeks and one hawkish congressman with heart (channeling the views of a panicky military facing an increasingly unwinnable war). When Congressman John Murtha stood up – and there wasn't a "skirt" in sight (not, at least, until Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accused him, briefly, of cowardice on the floor of the House of Representatives) – and suggested a withdrawal of American ground troops from Iraq on a six-month timetable, you could hear the administration's angry heart thumping.
Then, Chicken Little, the sky began to fall and withdrawal proposals, withdrawal trial balloons, withdrawal op-eds, withdrawal hints, clues, and suggestions of every sort suddenly rained down on us like those cats and dogs of children's books...
How (Not) to Withdraw from Iraq
by Tom Engelhardt
Tom Dispatch
December 2, 2005 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
this new withdrawal season of ours will undoubtedly prove a difficult one to sort out. With the president's speech at Annapolis, after a huge hint from Condoleezza Rice earlier in the week ("I do not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they are now because – for very much longer – because Iraqis are stepping up"), "withdrawal" or "pullout" or "draw-down" is everybody's property. In some ways, it was the Iraqis, meeting in Cairo, who helped get the withdrawal ball rolling by calling for a withdrawal "timetable" – promptly rejected by the Bush administration. Now, Bush officials and military men are jumping on board in a thoroughly confusing way. No surprise there, since a lot of yesterday's non-withdrawal people have a fair amount at stake in muddying the waters today.
Eternal vigilance
I am watching....
December 2, 2005 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as Ivo Daalder and the liberal hawks may desire it, one cannot just declare victory and walk away from the Great Debate, as Howard Dean's speech yesterday and Cole's comment on it shows
Cole: Dean Gets It, Bush Doesn't
"Winnning Smart"?
Bush made a considerable contribution to modern American political rhetoric with the his alliterations.
I gotta give the man credit.
But it is time for slogans to go..Especially for Democrats.
"complete victory" v. "Winning smart?"
C'mon. "Cutting our losses as best we can" doesn't make for much of a slogan I grant you but why is that the most important US foreign policy debate in decades must be reduced to what sounds like a colloquy between Beavis and Butthead?
I think Zbigniew Brzezinski has it about right. I have since the first I heard his views on disengagement nearly two years ago. I hasten to add that putting 5 years on Bush's lips is a fool's errand.
He's freed himself of Bush sloganeering perhaps?
What about Iraq?
Our congressional leaders are still inclined to dance around the issue or to find salvation in a formula that calls for American disengagement -- but gradually and without indicating what that means in terms of levels or dates. I’m not sure that’s a wise policy. Because once you begin to draw down your troops, it’s probably better to remove them rapidly. If you scale down your presence gradually, the reduced numbers are going to be in jeopardy. Moreover, it doesn’t have the psychological and political effect of shaking Iraqis into a realization that it is their responsibility to stand on their own feet. We need to scale down our definition of success and realize we’re not going to get a "democratic," secular, pro-American Iraq. We’re going to get an Iraq that is responsive to Iraqi nationalism and dominated by a combination of Shiites and Kurds with some proportion of Sunnis adjusting to that reality. It will probably be more theocratic in character than we would like to see. But it will be a regime that responds to current political realities. I think we need to bite the bullet and leave sometime in the next year.
December 7, 2005 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to motivate a bunch of cowards...scare the crap out of em...
I always say at any rate
Democrats Fear Anti-War Backlash at Polls
Nuthin to fear but fear itself marmots...
December 7, 2005 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink