Even the Bush team are starting to realise that they’ve constantly been one step behind reality in Iraq. Some administration officials, like other observers at the time, realised that the tipping point was the destruction of the Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra on February 22 last year. But Bush himself and his general on the ground, the strikingly named George W. Casey, didn’t. More on that later.
At the time of the attack on the Al-Askariya Mosque, I wrote:
What is to be done? No one, it seems, knows any more. Is there anyone who still argues that Iraq is on track to a peaceful and democratic future, in the face of humanitarian disaster, and the effective and tragic wreck of a country?
Democracy is certainly off the agenda, and it would now seem that the Cheney option of effectively siding with the Shi’ite government (itself a puppet of militias and sectarian leaders) in the civil war is looking more likely than not. Perhaps with a bit of guided regime change to dislodge Al-Maliki, but even in pulling such strings, the US’ reach is now much shorter than it was.
Even more strikingly, as the “stay the course” rhetoric fades into history, it’s hard to find anyone on the right - politicians, pundits, bloggers - who can argue a coherent case for what’s being achieved in Iraq, where it will end, or make any sensible strategic suggestions. Reality has finally caught up with right wing postmodernism, it seems. Or maybe not.
There are two straws in the wind reported in the US press which suggest which way things are headed.
As Paul Rogers suggests, as far as the administration is concerned, the Baker Study Group report is swinging in the breeze. The backgrounding which went into the NYT piece I’ve linked to strongly indicates that Bush has decided that Casey is the problem. It’s the personnel, stupid, is it? Casey, it’s tipped, will be replaced when the surge is announced. But what purpose will the additional troops serve? It will be bizarre to see how Bush justifies it. Particularly since many Americans will no doubt rightly feel that with 3000 American service people dead, sending more over will only deliver more of the same body bags for very little foreseeable gain.
Bush is either engaged in face-saving or is still in denial:
Mr. Bush still insists on talking about victory, even if his own advisers differ about how to define it. “It’s a word the American people understand,� he told members of the Iraq Study Group who came to see him at the White House in November, according to two commission members who attended. “And if I start to change it, it will look like I’m beginning to change my policy.�
He’s apparently frustrated that Casey presented him with options for withdrawal, not for victory. But whatever would victory look like? Carl Von Clausewitz would have been scathing about waging a campaign with no political conception of the end state to be achieved.
The other thing Bush is apparently in denial about is the impact of the election results. He can argue all he likes that the voters intended to signal only support for a change in tactics in Iraq, but few in the GOP agree with him.
In that context, the latest Bob Novak column is of great interest. Novak, a very well connected and long time conservative columnist, writes:
Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a ‘’surge” of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all of his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What’s more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority in the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.
President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the next presidential nomination, in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators. ”It’s Alice in Wonderland,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge. ”I’m absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.”
Novak goes on to observe that Republicans facing re-election in 2008 are running a million miles away from any surge suggestion. It’s political death. McCain is presumably acting out of conviction, and could perhaps talk this up as a virtue, but rank and file GOP Senators and House members know what they’re hearing from their electors.
Even in Mississippi, where Bush’s approval rating has just inched above 50 percent, Republicans see no public support for more troops. What is happening inside the president’s party is reflected by defection from support for his war policy after November’s election by two Republican senators who face an uphill race for re-election in 2008: Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman announced his opposition to more troops after returning from a trip to Iraq before McCain’s.
While the President has great leeway in foreign policy and is Commander in Chief of the military, it would be foolish to believe that the incoming Congress will just sit back on its leather benches, only to stand and salute the flag when prompted. Bush has not had a loyal army of footsoldiers for some time, and his political capital’s long been spent. The scourge of the surge may not be a Democratic Congress, but Bush’s own party.
Novak writes:
Bush enters a new world of a Democratic majority where the big microphone he talks about is smaller because he must share the stage.
Just as the president is ready to address the nation on Iraq, Biden next week begins three weeks of hearings on the war. On the committee, Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, Russell Feingold and Barack Obama will compete for intensity in criticizing a troop surge. But on the Republican side of the committee, no less probing scrutiny of Bush’s proposals will come from Chuck Hagel.
Teddy Roosevelt talked of the Presidency’s power as a “bully pulpit” to sway and lead public opinion. But President Bush will soon find a recently elected Congress mounting the steps and taking as its text the utter disaster he has wrought. And Republicans will be there in the choir, shouting “Amen, brother” along with the Democrats.
Elsewhere: Commentary from Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy. Road to Surfdom reports on a Military Times poll which shows a majority of military personnel disapproving of Bush’s handling of the war.
“straws in the wind”?
PS Good post.
G.W. Bush is caught in the gambler’s trap. He gambled big time and lost. Now he feels he has to double. Though what exactly it is he expects personally to gain from it all is a mystery. Certainly there is no political mileage for him in sending more troops.
Perhaps he is simply barking mad.
“Certainly there is no political mileage for him in sending more troops.”
Well, there’s no legacy left unless he does something, anything. But he’ll probably just stall for time or do something else stupid. I’m offering even odds here.
At about the same stage in LBJ’s second term, he was sitting in the Oval Office, listening to the protesters in Layafette Park and pissing in a wastepaper bin. At least he decided to cut and run from the job knowing he’d secured the black vote for the Demos for at least several generations.
But Dubya’s just gonna leave behind a tramautised Repub base, an economey hocked to the Chinese, a heap of memorable gaffes and a totally fucked up region where its key players used to be a big pillar of his family’s power base. Not any more. Bet Jeb’s roundly cursing his dickhead sibling now.
I reckon George W and James Buchanan will be neck and neck for worst POTUS ever. At least Harding popularised that delightful term “normalcy” while Chester A. Arthur and Jerry Ford just did their best to keep their noses out of it all.
Now here’s a thought experiment. Can you imagine any other name recognition US Prez (Repub or Demo) who could go more than a few drinks with Dubya without at the very least clipping him around the ear. Worst impersonation of a political alpha male ever.
Surge? In the reality based world it’s called escalation.
Mark:
You bet he would!!
War is difficult itself …. without adding to those difficulties by rushing into what may turn out to be the world’s biggest ambush …. ill-prepared, after giving your enemy plenty of notice, without practical post-war plans, without effective civil affairs and reconstruction programs and then going through your own generals like a dose of salts as well as offending interlocutors in the region.
War plus stupidity equals defeat. ((That, sadly, is why I adapted the American news media term “surrender monkeys” for Bush, Blair and Howard …. just stick around and you’ll see why soon enough)).
McCain is partly right in saying that sending in another 30 000 troops might save the situation …. but what he didn’t say was that for such a move to work, the US military would have to scrap its military doctrine (hey, fellas, the Second World War is over), revise its entire military training program and, after putting G W Bush and his accomplices in pokey, purging the Pentagon of its Bush sycophants. All terrific ideas but fat chance of them ever happening before Mr Bush is forced to sign the surrender documents. McCain’s desire for an additional 30 000 troops - as effective though unpopular as that may be - just won’t happen so it’s just a pipe-dream.
Nabakov:
Spot on!
There’s a very powerful domestic element to Bush’s “legacy”: that is the electoral health of the GOP as it emerges from theBush era.
It is clear that Bush is thinking hard about his “legacy” and that Cheney, among others, is encouraging him to think hard.
It is also clear by now that Bush is a major risk-taker.
And it has become evident that Bush has learned some of his own “lessons” from Vietnam. The most interesting of those “lessons” is that you lose only if you give up. The Right in the US has long blamed Congress for funking it over Vietnam. According to this view, Congress “lost” Vietnam after it had been “won” by refusing to fund the Thieu regime in late 1974 and 1975.
Now Bush is being encouraged in preserving his “legacy” by the following:
Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is now talking about denying funding to the Bush Administration for his surge. This threat contradicts undertakings made by the Dem Congressional leadership to eschew the opportunity to oppose Bush’s military adventures in this way.
The fact that the Dems are showing signs of splintering over this issue is political manna from heaven so far as Bush is concerned. He can continue to appear to press for “victory” in Iraq.
If the Dems support him by voting him funds Bush can argue that the Dems agreed with his methods. Bush used this flip flop argument effectively against Kerry in the 2004 election.
If the Dems split over this, Bush can point to their unsuitability for government.
If the Dems unite to deny funding then Bush can nail them as 1974-vintage defeatists.
It is clear that an extra 30,000 soldiers will achieve no military objective in Iraq. Rather, they are fighting for the future of the GOP and Bush’s “legacy”.
What remains to be seen is how the Democrats cope with the threat of being perceived as defeatists.
Also in play is how the military deal with the perception that they are being used not as an instrument of US foreign policy but as a tool in US domestic politics.
I’m not sure if that would work out so neatly for Bush and his cronies. It’s clear from the midterm elections that there is no will amongst the general public in America to throw more lives away in this war. If the Democrats deny funding for the troop surge, or even threaten to, this might be seen as the right thing to do by the public who seem to be completely disillusioned by Bush, Cheney et al. While I wouldn’t say that Bush’s ability to wedge the Dems and make them look incompetent or unpatriotic or whatever has gone, I’d say this ability is greatly reduced.
I think the Democrats’ biggest risk is in showing to much support for the troop “surge” (In other words, more of what didn’t work before, lets throw good money - and lives - away after bad). The public is heartily sick of this war and I don’t think they voted for the Democrats in the mid-terms just to have more troops sent there.
I could imagine other Presidents getting loaded with W., Nabakov, except that he gave it up for Jesus.
North American Evangelical Baptism: it’s simple, persuasive, musical (as Shaun noted), moderately violent on occasion, it’s got public confession and buckets of charisma, it’s got everything going for it except for the wacky prohibitions on booze, drugs and sex. What a fucking miserable way to enjoy a perfectly good fire-and-brimstone religion.
I’m going to go and liberate a case of Johnny Walker Red and bring democracy to it in the name of the PNAC.
Thanks Katz. That was very illuminating. So really, the very best outcome as far as the GOP is concerned would be if the dems DID block the extra troops. An extra 30,000 troops in Iraq may or may not make a difference, but if they don’t get sent, republicans will always be able bang on about the democrats lack of nerve over Iraq. There is nothing in politics so certain as what might have been.
That all presumes that the congressional GOP won’t also come out against funding for the surge. (Incidentally, I think the choice of term is to avoid the term “escalation” - it’s evidently an unused word in spin to date that’s been taken off the shelf). With Lieberman in support, the Dems couldn’t block funding on their own. But I think what Novak is saying is that GOP senators may also vote against funding. Maybe, maybe not. But the situation is very fluid - the surge wasn’t on the agenda in the midterms - and Novak’s point is that three weeks of hearing with a parade of retired generals (and probably people like Colin Powell) explaining what an unworkable disaster it would be would further alter the political climate.
Of course, Bush might be, as Katz says, just looking for a “stab in the back” position to form some sort of mythos for the future. But I very much doubt if it comes to denial of additional funding, it will be of any short term use for him politically, and it can’t happen unless parts of the GOP also vote to deny funding.
However, I suspect the most likely outcome is that funding will be forthcoming, but as I say, three weeks of hearings could be interesting - as with Watergate and Iran-Contra, publicised and high profile committee hearings can have a big impact on both public opinion and political dynamics.
Harry Reid (D, Nevada), the Senate Leader, gave a troop increase the thumbs up in December:
[link]
But, obviously, reading that article, not everyone agrees with him.
I suspect the Dems leadership might try and work out a common position on all this.
Incidentally, for the first time, a poll shows that a majority of military personnel disagree with Bush’s handling of the war:
[link]
That was the point implied in my comment.
Bush is dead politically. But he’s possibly not entirely aware of that fact.
Cheney, on the other hand, is.
And for Cheney the struggle continues. Bush’s viability as a leader is to be sacrificed for his “legacy”. And the situation in Iraq are to be sacrificed, if necessary to the greater cause.
And in the playbook devised by Cheney, what is Bush’s “legacy” to be? Bush is to provide an opportunity to build a “stab-in-the-back” myth that may serve the Right well in the future, long after Bush retires, despised and rejected, from public life.
The deeper point is that Bush is now even more the tool of Cheney and the Hard Right.
Yes, agreed, Katz.
May be we could ship Tim Blair and his keyboard warriors over in place of the US troops,they could then procede to bore the IRAQs to death,considering they must be the only people alive who think its a success
According to Tim Blair, Iraq is “liberated”, which is a “win”.
So there’s no need for all that: mission accomplished.
Mark, great blog with some very astute observations by all. I recall victory celebrations began within weeks of the commencement of the second bush invasion, its been a long time hollow victory and will probably remain so even after bush completes office.
And being cynical, those 30,000 troops are most likely democrat voters, thats gotta be good for the republicans.
Did have a giggle over your first sentence “…Even the Bush team are starting to realise that they’ve constantly been one step behind reality in Iraq…” To say team Bush are one step behind is very kind, I don’t believe Bush is on the same planet.
PS happy new year’s blogging to all
Thanks, tic toc.
Latest from Wallerstein:
[link]
Very good recent article by Kenneth Pollack listing the mistakes that were made in the reconstruction of Iraq. It is a depressingly long list, though he concludes things are not entirely hopeless.
[link]
Regarding Nab’s thought experiment, I can’t picture Jimmy Carter clipping anyone around the ear!
I’ll chime in with tic toc, this is a great post and comments. According to a couple of lefty American political blog sites, Bush will pitch his pending push for escalation as; America needing to make greater sacrifices to achieve total victory in Iraq.
Buzzword - sacrifice.
One wonders how much more human sacrifice it will take to gratify the ego of an imbecile.
And how much more time will death need, as W.S.Burroughs asked, for what it kills, to grow in?
This is beyond a simple escalation, the US has sent another carrier group. I think this is gonna get really ugly fast. The administration is clearly bent on crash or crash through.
“I think this is gonna get really ugly fast.”
Take 2.
“I think this is gonna get really ugly fast. The administration is clearly bent on crash or crash through.”
Certainly seems that way, Phil. The White House Iraq Group wasn’t forged to win a Nobel.
The USS Enterprise is soon for the scrapyard. Be terrible if Sea Terrorists, USS Cole-style malfeasants, punched a hole in the carrier’s side, or worse. Not so large a Gulf really from Tonkin to Persia, all things considered.
Noting Bush’s current hellbento stance, let’s speculate a bit furthur. The Enterprise is “attacked” at night, because in the dark, aftermath shots of “The Moment” have greater impact on the folks at home, when there are lots of contrasting colours on their MSM fed screens. It’s a perfect set up for The Rendon Group, BushCo’s perception managers of choice. No pesky en passant marine paparazzi either, to sully the message.
Bush’s Cheney-enhanced jocklogic would dictate that the only way for American honour to be upheld, would be by massive retaliation against the “perpetrators”. Simultaneous expressions of the War-On-Terror against Iraq and Iran(surgical air strikes) would put a handbrake on world trade, but what the heck, everyone’s sacrificin’ a little here. Naturally, these sacrifices would only be a temporary thing. Bush could don a bigger codpiece, cementing his legacy in his own mind as a greater War President than Poppy, then slip the M.E. hospital pass to the next Decider-In-Chief. Meantime, Lockheed, Halliburton and the usual MIC suspects remain unencumbered in making their customary killing.
Hellbento. I like the idea.
[unwraps parcel, wipes chopsticks, lifts lid]
“This is gonna get ugly fast”
A massive beef up of morale, troop numbers & will to win (however temporary) is going to get very ugly for the enemy.
This is a good thing.
A massive beef up of morale, troop numbers & will to win (however temporary) is going to get very ugly for the enemy.
Now let me see,just which enemy are you referring to? Us or them?
Chimpo has tied the US to a runaway blimp. The longer the ride lasts, the higher the blimp floats.
And the bigger the thud when the US finally works up the nerve to cut itself loose.
On the carrier group, its only military function is a platform for “precision bombing raids”. Seeing as most of Chimpo’s military effort will be in Baghdad, this means bombing houses and other structures in neighbourhoods.
So Chimpo wants to conquer Baghdad for the third time. This time round the insurgents are already a fair way up a very steep learning curve about how to make conventional forces very uncomfortable in an urban guerrilla setting.
The insurgency is following Carlos Marighella’s Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla, to the letter. Interestingly, this book is still banned in the US. I wonder if this prohibition extends to the military forces that are tasked with fighting insurgencies that use Marighella’s strategies.
Thanks to the WWW, even Americans can read
I loves a laugh: The enemy is “them”.
Unlike some who comment here, or write for newspapers etc, I know which side my bread is buttered on, however unpleasant I may find the taste.
“I know which side my bread is buttered on, however unpleasant I may find the taste.”
Hey steve, which circuses do you like?
Mark provided a quote above which stated: “So what will happen now? Bush will push through the plan for more U.S. troops. As every serious commentator has pointed out, this will make no military difference.”
Not so! John Keegan, arguably Britain’s greatest living military historian, and as serious a commentator as they come, thinks the surge may indeed make a difference. See this article, “50,000 more US troops can save Iraq”:
[link]
And just to correct Katz on a small point, no book or film can be banned per se in the US unless it involves something like child pornography. You can cruise over to amazon.com and pick up a second-hand copy of Marighella for $12.95.
[link]
He appears to be talking basically about flattening Sadr City, Paulus. Destroying Baghdad in order to save it? In any case, as Christine commented on another thread, the tactics envisaged appear to be quite different.
[link]
Actually, I might close this thread off and send people round to that one, as it’s basically a continuation of this one. Gets a bit confusing when you have similar debates occurring on two threads simultaneously.