« "Surging" is No Plan: Concerned Americans Plan Picket Action at McCain/Lieberman Appearance | Home | Moral Responsibility to Iraqis: Are We Fulfilling it? Do We Mean It? »
Change People, Not Policy
Bush said he'll announce his "new" Iraq policy next week, which likely will just be the old policy with a new fancy title and more troops in harm's way. But to make the case that he's really changing policy when he's not, Bush will replace all of the top military and civilian Americans in Iraq. “This helps the president to make the case that this is a fresh start,” one official tells the Times this morning.
So rather than keeping the people who actually know something about Iraq and have established relations with the Iraqis who will have to make any new policy work, we're sending in a whole bunch of new faces to try to convince the American people we're changing course. Don't think the public will buy it, do you?
Advertisement
I hope you are right, Ivo. But there is a powerful uneasiness in the country that is looking for reassurance. Bush may be able to tap into that need.
America is likely to be on an emotional roller-coaster for several years over this mess. That's why I think we should be discussing how Democrats can take the lead in focusing the country's thoughts and energies on the huge, coming challenge of extricating ourselves while working with our traditional allies, together with friends and foes in the Middle East, to rebuild security arrangements there, as you suggest in your post on "Confronting Failure in Iraq."
January 5, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
earlier in the week i posted a comment elsewhere in the cafe about the possibility that bush's proposed 'surge' might be draped around petraeus' 'new' counterinsurgency field manual. and that bush might replace casey with petraeus. these possibilities had been weighing on my mind for the last month or so and i'd attempted several times to compose a coherent post to wonder aloud about these possibilities and whether or not they would represent an actual change in tactics in iraq.
now that petraeus has in fact been tapped to replace casey, it seems pretty obvious now that the 'surge' that (we can only assume) bush will be officially proposing next week will necessarily be wrapped around petraeus' field manual.
perhaps it would be worthwhile for folks here at TPM who know more about military matters than i to discuss whether or not petraeus' counterinsurgency field manual would represent an actual change in strategy. also: though the manual doesn't seem to me to say much on the specifics of troop levels, would bush's 'surge' jibe with the field manual? would the 'surge' really be the 'major offensive' ultimate show of brute force against the mahdi army as everyone here at TPM seems to imagine or could the 'surge' be planned as part of something more measured and tactical and actually proscribed for in the counterinsurgency field manual?
but ultimately one of the more glaring take-aways from the counterinsurgency field manual is that military action is not superior to serious diplomacy in defeating an insurgency. regardless of who bush puts in charge of the military in iraq, if bush isn't prepared for the heavy lifting diplomatic effort required none of this will matter.
(another possibility: bush's 'surge' was a misdirection from the beginning??? i don't know. i'm just too confused about this whole mess.)
read the petraeus counterinsurgency field manual here: www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
January 5, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink