While his persistence is admirable, George Bush is getting ready to shoot himself in the foot on Monday when he appears at George Washington University to insist that things are going well in Iraq. Today's Washington Post announces a so-called “NEW” offensive to explain the U.S. war strategy in Iraq. Except, this is not new. This marks at least his fourth public relations offensive since Bush was re-elected in November of 2004.
Back in early 2005 we only had a two track policy. In June 2005 President Bush:
recalled his June 24 meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari at the White House and previewed his scheduled June 28 address to the American people, in which he intends to speak of "our mission in Iraq, why it remains important to our safety here at home, and our two-track strategy for victory. The first track is military, according to the president, in which the United States must "defeat the terrorists and continue helping Iraqis take greater responsibility for defending their freedom" against "terrorists . . . .On the second, or political track, Bush said, the U.S. strategy "is to continue helping Iraqis build the institutions of a stable democracy.
Bush presented his "strategy" before a captive audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in July 2005. Yet, his cheery presentation failed to alter the course of events in Iraq. Instead of abating, the fighting escalated. Within four months it was clear that the two-pronged strategy did not work.
This was followed by an expanded strategy, with the publication last November of the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. The Bush Administration redefined Victory in Iraq as consisting of three stages:
• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
The President offered up a more concise benchmark for victory during a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations on December 7, 2005. He said:
By fighting the terrorists in Iraq," President Bush said, "we are confronting a direct threat to the American people--and we will accept nothing less than complete victory.... Victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.
President Bush was banking on the December Iraqi national elections to provide the political cover for us to start extricating our troops from the morass. Notwithstanding Bush's repeated assurances in December and January that we were winning in Iraq and that things are getting better, reality intruded. The Shiites won a plurality of the votes and set about consolidating their power. This in turn sharpened sectarian tensions.
The result? Mosques are being attacked and destroyed, car bombs keep exploding, the number of IED attacks is increasing, and Iraqi security forces (with Shiite roots) have been caught torturing Sunnis. Oh, and don't forget that electrical power lines and oil pipelines are regularly attacked and destroyed by insurgents.
What about international terrorism? Instead of subsiding, terrorism has surged worldwide since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. In 2004 and 2005 the number of terrorist attacks that killed or injured people reached the highest levels recorded since the CIA started keeping statistics in 1968.
Finally, despite the much ballyhooed election in December, the Iraqis still have not agreed on a government and the legislature, which was supposed to meet no later than Sunday, March 12, apparently will not convene. Even if they do Iraq is no closer to having a functioning government that enjoys the support of a majority of the population.
The preview of what Bush intends to say on Monday at George Washington University suggests that the President is consulting Baghdad Bob rather than deal with reality. Unfortunately, no matter what the President says, the reality of violence in Iraq will continue to fester and the civil war, which has been underway for at least the last 18 months, will intensify. Against this reality will be the tug of war between the politicians in Washington who are eager to drawdown troops before the election and the military commanders, who apparently believe that to withdraw substantial numbers of U.S. forces from Iraq will almost certainly permit the civil war to expand in scale and scope.
There is no easy out. Our best chance of "success" is to shore up the Shiites and try to cultivate the more modern, cosmopolitan elements of that group, while continuing to aid the Kurds in the North. This path is tricky, however, because the Iranians are pursuing a similar strategy with the Shia Iraqis. Some of the more radical Shias--Moqtada al Sadr in particular--are building up their arms caches and are ready to fight if necessary. Their arms and financing are coming from Iran.
Ironically, by strengthening the Iraqi Shias we will weaken our ability to pursue military action against Iran. The Iraqi Shias, for example, have the capability of operating as a 5th column that could disrupt and even cutoff our logistics supply chain, which runs from Kuwait through southern Iraq and up to key U.S. bases, such as Balad.
It is time for George Bush to stop with the upbeat campaign speeches. Iraq is not a problem because of bad public relations. It is a threat because of bad policy, inadequate understanding of the cultural and religious dynamics that drive the county, and a failure to clearly define what U.S. interest (or interests) we are pursuing there. The good news is that our current Ambassador and military leadership in Iraq understand the peril. It is time for the President to wake up and catch up.
I can't imagine why we'd want to "shore up the Shiites." The result would be to give them complete control of the old province of Basra.
Shiites constitute a majority in the Ghawar oilfield region of northeastern Saudia Arabia and very substantial minorities in the states of the Persian Gulf littoral. Connecting them all up with Iran in one large blocby way of Basra is the last thing we would want to do.
March 11, 2006 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Larry notes, there are no good choices in iraq. the question is, why does bush bother to pretend there are? who is actually still listening to him on iraq?
the american public appears to have made up its mind: we were, at best, misled into this piece of adventurism, the costs are enormous, the best-case-scenario (the fabled non-theological coalition of national unity that we are desperately hoping to will into existence) has next to no chance of happening, and if it doesn't, the ugly civil war scenario is the most likely outcome.
more mush from the wimp (to quote from a famous boston globe characterization of jimmy carter) isn't going to change anyone's mind, not that bush possesses the intellectual and rhetorical (absent michael gerson) capabilities to even have a shot at it.
what is he trying to accomplish?
March 11, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Against this reality will be the tug of war between the politicians in Washington who are eager to drawdown troops before the election and the military commanders, who apparently believe that to withdraw substantial numbers of U.S. forces from Iraq will almost certainly permit the civil war to expand in scale and scope.
"tug of war"? With "miliatry commanders"? Who wastes his time having a "tug of war" with a bunch of court eunuchs?
"apparently believe"? "Apparently" is "certainly" the operative word, here. The definition of "belief" in the military is whatever floats its boat at the moment.
March 11, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Army is at its breaking point, we keep hearing. (By the way, what sort of middling power does it take to be at its "breaking point" after 3 years of a nasty yet second-rate conflict? I hope we retire the word "superpower" once and for all because it's getting to be laughable.)
So a drawdown is inevitable.
Except that, at this juncture, a drawdown would seal Bush's fate: worst defeat, worst president. So it can't really happen.
What gives?
March 11, 2006 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone here have thoughts about the Draft? What would have to take place for this Administration to reinstate the draft? War with Iran? Can we prevent the draft? Is there a draft in President Bushes head?
March 12, 2006 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Draft is a four letter word for this administration as one of the selling points on the invasion of Iraq was that it would be painless and easy, open arms, flowers, candy, they would love us to pieces and all that good stuff.
Also to reinstate the draft would not sit well with Rumsfeld whose whole theory on the invasion was based on the fact we would only need 50,000 troops and we would not want to make ol’ rummy out as a liar would we.
To have a draft would be tantamount to Bush admitting he was wrong, I doubt it will happen.
March 12, 2006 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor President Bush, how ever did he manage to get in such a quandary?
As Groucho Marx once said, “He looks like an idiot, he talks like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you he really is an idiot.
But fear not because as Mark Russell once said, “When America pulls out of Iraq, Iraq will be overrun by the Iraqis.”
Once upon a time, long ago and far away there was a strange little man who told us we needed to invade Iraq because the weather man predicted mushroom clouds. What ever happened to that? I don’t think we should forget why we went there, or at least what we were told why we went there and how it morphed down through modern history into we are delivering them unto democracy.
March 12, 2006 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq is not a problem because of bad public relations. It is a threat because of bad policy, inadequate understanding of the cultural and religious dynamics that drive the county, and a failure to clearly define what U.S. interest (or interests) we are pursuing there.
In addition, it certainly seems that the Iranian government has been playing this administration like a fiddle. It's now certain that Chalabi, the neo-con's darling, was being run, with or without his knowlege, from Tehran through his intelligence chief Aras Karim Habib, and that all the WMD "intelligence" was simply dis-information that the chicken hawks swallowed whole. Having conned the neo-cons into taking-out Saddam for them, they were assured ascendancy in any new government, simply by virtue of their 60% majority. In addition, they've been able to keep things so unstable that our Army is completely tied down, and they can persue their nuclear program without any real threat from the U.S.
So, in short, the Iranians have maneuvered the Bushies into getting rid of Hussein, ensuring a Shiite Iraq, and simultaneously paralyzing the American military. I would attribute this to brilliance on their part, but it's easy to appear brilliant when your opponents are morons. And morons don't architect strategies.
March 12, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's rhetorical problems are based on the fact that he still intends to control Iraqi oil and establish permanent bases in Iraq, the same reasons he started the war for. The only reconstruction funds going to Iraq are for the bases. Of course Bush would like to Vietnamize the insurgency to reduce American casualties. He's probably ordered the American troops to hole up in their bases until the 2006 elections are over. The goal was to stay in Iraq forever from the begining.
"War is a Racket." Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
March 12, 2006 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
aztec has hit the nail on the head with this post. Bizarrely, even lib sites like TPM rarely if ever mention the obvious #1 goal of the Bushies, which is a set of permanent military bases in Iraq from which to dominate the Middle Eastern oil fields.
Suggested reading on this point: The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson.
March 12, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just seems to me that the American People are coming to the conclusion that the decision to do the Iraq thing was a bad idea from the start. They are no longer convinced that, in spite of bad intelligence, Bush made the right decision purely by accident. They are asking: "If we can make good decisions with bad intelligence, why pay good money for good intelligence?"
Here are Bush's two choices. 1) Find some way to convince us that it was a good decision. 2) Admitt it was a bad decision and clear the way for us all to move forward together.
March 12, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's middle name is disaster, he will stay the course no matter what the cost to America or Iraq.
Come on cafe'ers. Finish the work of the fallen. Flypaper for terrorists. March of democracy. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi/Iranian people. Spreadin' God's gift of freedom. Mission accomplished. Bring 'em on. Dead enders. His job to make the hard decisions. Smoke out the leakers and truthtellers.
March 12, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
William Lind examined this Strategy for Victory - that spun conocoction not of a military expert but of a Doctor of Spin (colleague of Dr. Bruce!) - and it took it apart in December.
The Iraqis have been taking it apart ever since.
On War #143
Questionable Assumptions
- Willam S. Lind
I should another commonly held "assumption" - that the US forces now fighting a civil war for the Kurds and Shiites are the only force holding back a flood tide of anarchy. Well if the facts don't tell ya diffrnt, just ask Rumsfeld or Abizaid who in just the past two days emphatically said that the US would not interfere, that the Iraqi forces would have to deal with such things.
March 12, 2006 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Oh please Lord not again!
How a plague of locusts or toads
March 12, 2006 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
March 12, 2006 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Sorry .. Experts Say today what I've been preaching for over a year. Iraq has been in a civil war for months now. US forces have been mercenaries for two of the four (?) sides. It is just getting worse (and more obvious) that's all.
How about some toads YHWH?
March 12, 2006 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
sheesh
March 12, 2006 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 12, 2006 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush cannot run for reelection, and he still has another three years to disassemble the federal government parts that obstruct his cronies abilities to accumulate still more money. That is adequate time. So, Bush doesn't have to make any choice.
The main theme of this administration is that truth is anything they wish to say, that reality is whatever they want it to be. Consistent with that, Bush will once again, for the nth time tell us just how great things are in Iraq, how we are making rapid progress, as the Saddamists are being killed off, and the Iraqis are all joyous about all of this. His plan this time around will be to continue with this wondrous escapade. And, make the tax cuts permanent.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 12, 2006 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Except that, at this juncture, a drawdown would seal Bush's fate: worst defeat, worst president. So it can't really happen.
What gives?"
IMO, "what gives" could be called LBJ syndrome. Our Republican Congress is not going to force Bush to draw down troops, any more than they're going to start investigating Bush illegalities. To force the Administration to withdraw troops is the equivalent of saying "we were wrong". When's the last time you heard the Republican Party say that?
What's much more likely to happen is that there will be a changing of the guard. Democrats will take at least one house (more likely the House). At that point a serious discussion of withdrawl will take place.
Once that discussion starts, the Administration's facade of bravado will vanish in an instant. All of the problems in Iraq will not only be acknowledged publicly, but they will become the Democrat's fault.
Hell, the White House is probably planning the PR campaign right now, complete with contingency options.
-Dave Adams-
March 12, 2006 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go here for Gary Hart's chilling, and historical view of where we are now in Iraq:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/us-army-in-jeopardy-in-ir_b_17188.html
Jan Knaus
March 13, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
At a recent fundraiser in Ohio, Karl Rove said: "Abandoning Iraq now would signal to US allies that America can't be trusted. He goes on, "Tyrants in the Middle East would laugh at our failed resolve. To retreat before victory would be a reckless act."
A reckless act? Trusted? Laughed at?
It's all about the continuation of propping up egos- soldiers be damned. Narcissists cannot accept any reality that does not enforce their greatness.
March 13, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was no call for a draft (by Bush et al) for the same reason there was no tax increase. Either sensible effort to support a war would have invited too much attention to the details. It was much preferable to encourage Americans to trust the Pres. and not sweat the details.
March 13, 2006 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
At a recent fundraiser in Ohio, Karl Rove said: "Abandoning Iraq now would signal to US allies that America can't be trusted. He goes on, "Tyrants in the Middle East would laugh at our failed resolve. To retreat before victory would be a reckless act."
A reckless act? Trusted? Laughed at?
It's all about the continuation of propping up egos- soldiers be damned. Narcissists cannot accept any reality that does not enforce their greatness.
March 13, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely the language used during the Vietnam war. We had to show we could be trusted, we had to show our resolve, or our enemies would consider us a paper tiger.
It sounded desperate then, too.
March 13, 2006 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Is there a draft in Bush’s head?”
Actually yes, it starts in one ear and goes clear through to the other and on out.
March 13, 2006 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that the focus of the war has shifted. Iraqis are only trying to kill Americans incidentally....now they're mostly trying to kill each other. I still hold to the applecart theory....we kicked over the Iraqis' applecart, so now we're morally obligated to pick up the apples.
So if we stay, Iraqi will kill Iraqi. If we leave, it'll be just the opposite. It appears there is literally no good way out...the apples are unwilling to stay in the same cart together. If anyone has a clever solution, now would be a good time.
Noel
March 13, 2006 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty certain Bush has never said things are going "well" in Iraq. He does continue to say that "progress" is being made--which, believe it or not, is true. But there is a big difference in those two terms.
March 14, 2006 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettsburg - At what point and under what circumstances are you willing to admit that the Iraq war has been the kind of strategic disaster Gen. Odom has described? Do you really think Iraq will become the kind of benevolent democracy that represents no threat to Israel or the USA?
March 14, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
<<I'm pretty certain Bush has never said things are going "well" in Iraq. He does continue to say that "progress" is being made--which, believe it or not, is true. But there is a big difference in those two terms.>>
I agree with you up to a point- organized resistance _to the US_ is gradually being eliminated. Unfortunately, though, even as local areas are gradually being pacified there is no central authority capable of running the country. There's always been this divide in our thinking between "terrorists" and "good Iraqis," and up to a point that's accurate. But the recent fighting seems to be between different factions of "good Iraqis."
What we need is an Iraqi unifying figure, someone with enough prestige to command respect from all quarters and strong enough to squash violent opposition from any quarter without alienating others members of that group- basically, an Iraqi George Washington; or, more precisely, an Iraqi Ataturk. Unfortunately, Washingtons and Ataturks don't come along that often.
Noel
March 14, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink