Bush says his plans for Iraq were unrealistic

What we have now is the Decider saying that nobody could possibly have expected the restoration of democracy in Iraq or the hand off of security responsibility to Iraqis to succeed. It's just too difficult, there are too many challenges, and it's Saddam's fault, besides.

Then why did has he spent the past four years or so telling us that these things were proceeding smoothly?

full story from VOA

Bush: Saddam's Legacy Slowing Progress in Iraq

President Bush says one of the reasons for the slow pace of political progress in Baghdad is the continuing legacy of former dictator Saddam Hussein.

When President Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq earlier this year, one of his goals was to have Iraqis in charge of security in all 18 provinces by November.

That is not going to happen. And U.S. military officials say it will not until next July, at the earliest.

Yes, this was one of the promises of the surge: that Iraqis would take control of the security situation so that we could leave. It failed. Bush bought himself nine more months on Iraq by making big promises, and now he is using his failure to deliver on those promises as a bizarre justification to ask for more time. No new plan this time around, just a stall.

Acknowledging the slower than expected progress at a White House news conference Thursday, the president said while the timing has changed, his determination has not.

"The goals are the same," said President Bush. "And have we achieved them as fast? No we haven't. But, however, having not achieved them doesn't mean we ought to quit."

Perhaps it does mean that we could reasonably expect doubts on Bush's ability to predict success, however. Bush has been consistently wrong on virtually every prediction for years. Perhaps we could take this opportunity to re-assess our strategy? Bush's answer is that apparently it's Saddam's fault.

Mr. Bush said one of the reasons there is not what he called "instant democracy" in Iraq is that people there are still recovering from the former regime's violence against political opponents. President Bush said the former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein prevented the possible emergence of a unifying figure akin to South Africa's Nelson Mandela.

"Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," said Mr. Bush. "He was a brutal tyrant who divided people up and split families and people are recovering from this. So there is a psychological recovery that is taking place, and it is hard work for them."

Did we not know this before the invasion? It took over four years to figure out that Iraq is not suitable for democracy? This is hardly "instant democracy", either. And if we did know this, then why did Bush continually predict "instant democracy" and prosperity for years?

It is obvious that Bush's plan was to install Ahmed Challabi as a puppet leader who would virtually give away Iraq's oil to the 'liberators'. The Iraqis, however, would have none of it. So we had elections, which the Sunnis boycotted. Yes, despite all the "Mandelas" being wiped out by Saddam, we proceeded with elections. Now wise old Mr. Bush tells us that we shouldn't have expected this to succeed. Then why did we do it, and why was has it been presented as the major glowing achievement of the invasion?

Similarly, the Iraqi military was supposed to take the lead in the surge and restore security. That was the plan as proposed by Bush in his January 10 speech. Now we are told that this is completely unrealistic, that the Iraqi military cannot possibly be trained fast enough to have enough numbers to take over.
Then why was that the plan?
Bush is, in effect, saying that his own plans for democracy and security were ridiculous, and that nobody should ever have expected them to succeed.
He certainly didn't share that bit of wisdom with the nation, did he?

The president is trying to rebuild public support for the war, in part by announcing that progress there now allows him to bring nearly 6,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of the year.

In other words, troops that were told they would be coming home by the end of the year are now actually being allowed to come home. And this is because of the surge's "success", somehow. And there's so much 'progress' that we can now admit that this plan was fatally flawed from the outset. Sounds like a great way to "rebuild public support".

Iraq is a central issue in the race to succeed President Bush, with most opposition Democrats calling for more troop withdrawals and most Republicans backing the president.

Asked if he is an asset or a liability for his Republican Party, Mr. Bush said he is a strong asset.

"Candidates who go out and say that helping these Iraqis realize the benefits of democracy are going to do well," he said. "Candidates who go out and say that it is very important for the U.S. to have clear principles when it comes to foreign policy, they will do well."

VOA News

Those candidates had better be able to show any "benefits" from that democracy. The government the Iraqis elected is impotent and incompetent. 50,000 Iraqis each month flee the "benefits of democracy", and most of them in favour of an authoritarian police state in Syria. The health care, water delivery, and electrical delivery infrastructures have collapsed. New victims of sectarian violence show up in Baghdad nearly every day. Torture in Iraqi prisons is commonplace. People wait all day in lines for the mere chance of buying gasoline at ridiculous prices. Contractors kill innocent civilians on the street and the government's demands that they be expelled are ignored by the U.S.

As for "clear principles when it comes to foreign policy", all Bush has to offer are constantly shifting goals. The current one is that we are dividing the terrorists into 'good' and 'bad' categories. The 'good terrorists' will be used to wipe out the 'bad terrorists', since the Iraqi military is a no-show. But we're against terrorism, unless the terrorists make a temporary alliance with us to wipe out the competition. And somehow the 'good terrorists' will just fade quietly away after the 'bad terrorists' are defeated. How could this possibly fail?
In 2003 our goals were:

"We will disarm Saddam Hussein and thwart the danger posed by his weapons of mass destruction, bring stability and unity to a free Iraq, "deliver medicine to the sick," and move emergency rations to feed the hungry. "After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home."

And now we are reduced to merely hoping that we can keep the violence to pre-surge levels while the country whimpers in economic, social, and ethnic chaos.