After four years of "turning the corner" and "the next six months will be crucial" statements, the surge was announced as the way to crush the sectarian militias and expel Al-Qaeda from Iraq, as well as stabilise the Iraqi government so that it would become "a strong ally in the War On Terror".
None of that happened. Instead, we divided the sectarian militias into 'good' and "bad' terrorists, moved Al-Qaeda to areas where they hadn't had a presence before, and watched the Iraqi government slide into impotence and irrelevance while they supported their own terrorist militias and let the Iraqi army and police flounder.
Now with this dubious 'success' under its belt, the surge can end. We can apparently build on this 'progress' and return to the policies that made the surge necessary in the first place. We're no longer looking for "victory", but merely "success", and success is a word that has a very malleable definition. Success is now something that can be spun out of whole cloth with suspect statistics. Questioning those statistics is treason.
On top of that, Gates now says that if 'progress' allows, we could see 30,000 more troops come home.
The subtext is simple: if you want to see the troops come home, then you had better start talking up the "success" in Iraq.
In yet another slimy, manipulative, and cynical move doomed to failure, Bush is now trying to enlist Democrats (and the nation as a whole) in a massive cheerleading effort. Like some perverse Peter Pan, if only we clap for "progress" loud enough, the troops will come home. We will still be engaged in a seemingly endless occupation of a failed state with 100,000 troops, but we will gain the return of 30,000 troops. And Bush will leave office vindicated, of course, regardless of what the conditions really are in Iraq. That will be his successor's problem.
The most obvious problem with this approach is that Bush has no credibility whatsoever with the American people beyond his base. His base will believe anything he says, no matter how fantastic it is. The public at large simply does not believe Bush would keep to his word.
The second problem is that this is not what those who marginally support the war really want. They want 'victory', and they want it soon. They don't want us there for another ten years or more, which is what Petraeus is estimating it will take to bring stability to Iraq.
The third problem with this domestic strategy is that the Republicans have tied themselves irrevocably to Iraq, and the Democrats are not going to let them slip out from under it with a wink and a nod about false 'progress'.
The fourth problem is that, far from pulling away from military involvement in the Middle east, Bush is now planning new attacks against Iran and Syria. The troops that are "withdrawn" from Iraq will merely go to Bush's new wars, and he will wring his hands that he was forced not be able to keep up his end of the bargain. If only the world would align itself with Bush's fantasies, we would have peace. Instead, we must move forward with new wars, with fewer allies, to make the Decider look like a visionary. Your patriotism is appreciated as we move through these difficult times.
The fifth problem is that Bush's Iraqi strategy of dividing terrorists into "good' and "bad" categories was a short-term one to create the illusion of progress for the September report. The 'good' terrorists are only with us as long as it serves their interests, which is to use our troops to wipe out the rival 'gangs'. Strengthening the militias only makes the Iraqi army's task more difficult in the long-term. Either the Iraqi military will have to contest the 'good' terrorists for control, or the Iraqi military will become infiltrated by the 'good' terrorists and merely serve their interests. Neither case will bring stability, no matter how much Americans cheer at home.
The bottom line is that Iraq's Shia majority will naturally align itself with Iran, and unless we topple the Iranian regime with another invasion and long occupation, Iraq will never be a strong ally in the War On Terror. Iraq, the American people, nor the world at large has the stomach for Bush's vision. And while the U.S. is tied up in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it will be unable to respond to new challenges that arise. Bush is promising nothing more than endless war that will bankrupt us and destroy our military, and subvert our democracy here at home.
The "way forward" is paved with lies and new wars, and obscene profits for military contractors. I'm not cheering for that.
Defying calls for a dramatic change of course, president says he's building long-term ties
Sep 14, 2007 04:30 AM
Tim Harper
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON–George W. Bush told Americans last night he is building an "enduring relationship'' with Iraq, one that may mean fewer U.S. troops in that country, but one that will extend well beyond his presidency.
The message from the U.S. president that the American troop presence, as he envisions it, will last for years to come was a major change in tone and led to suggestions here last night that he was looking at the Korean model, where Americans have been for half a century.
The last time Bush went on national television last winter, to announce his so-called "troop surge'' he said he had made it clear to Iraqi leaders that "America's commitment is not open-ended.''
But that is precisely what Bush seemed to say last night.
In a prime time address to the country – Bush's eighth direct television appeal on Iraq – the president said he would order a withdrawal of American troops beginning with 2,200 Marines already scheduled to leave Iraq this month.
The numbers would rise to 5,500 by Christmas and more than 20,000 could be home by next summer, but that would still leave more than 130,000 Americans in the country during the stretch run of the 2008 presidential campaign.
That has not only galvanized Democratic opposition to what they are now calling an "open-ended'' Bush war, but it is also causing much nervousness among Republicans facing re-election with an unpopular war still taking American lives at the rate of about 60 per month.
Never before has Bush faced such a skeptical public and the troop reduction he trumpeted last night would bring the country back only to the troop level of last November, when voters handed control of Congress to Democrats because of unhappiness with a war that showed no sign of progress.
Critics pointed out that Bush, acting on the recommendations of his top military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, was merely returning troops from a military "surge'' he ordered last January in a last-ditch effort to secure Iraq.
Bush said Iraqi leaders support a drawdown of troops but have made it clear they want an American presence in Iraq well beyond the end of his term in January 2009.
"These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America,'' Bush said. "And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.''
Rhode Island's Jack Reed delivered the Democratic rebuttal, saying Bush had provided for the "indefinite'' mission of 130,000 Americans, but did not provide "either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.
"Thousands of brave Americans remain in the crosshairs of another country's civil war,'' Reed said.
He called on Republicans to work with Democrats to bring troops home. "An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option," he added.
The war, in its fifth year, has so far killed 3,777 Americans, wounded more than 27,000 and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Although Bush, like Petraeus, touted success in Iraq's Anbar province, one of the Sunni leaders who had worked closely with U.S. forces there, Abdul-Sattar Abu Reesha, was killed yesterday, 10 days after he met Bush during the president's visit to Anbar.
Before the speech, a senior administration official told reporters Bush wanted to get Iraq to "a good place'' for the next president.
But the official said a long-term relationship does not mean strictly military boots on the ground. "We have interests in this region that go beyond Iraq proper. It doesn't mean 169,000 troops.''
Bush said he believed the way forward he was describing made it possible "for the first time in years'' for people on the opposite side of the war to come together.
There was little sign of that and his speech only hardened Democratic views and provided fodder for those seeking that party's presidential nomination.
"The American people long ago lost faith in the president's leadership of the war in Iraq because his rhetoric has never matched the reality on the ground,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
"The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment and the president's plan for a 10-year war in Iraq."
Democratic presidential hopefuls pounced on the Bush speech as too little, too late.
"What the president told the American people (last night) is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago,'' said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. "That is ... unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home."
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Bush continues to hurt America's standing in the world by refusing to change course in Iraq.
"Iraq's leaders are not making the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, but the president wants us to keep giving him a blank check,'' Obama said.
Barbara Lee, an anti-war Democrat from California, said the speech was an exit strategy for Bush at the expense of American troops.
"It's the president's plan to run out the clock on his failed policy, to move the goal posts once again, so that he can sneak out the back door and leave the American people holding the bag,'' she said.
The battle over the future of the war will begin anew here next week, when Democrats in the Senate are expected to again try to muster enough votes to pass a bill that would lengthen the time between troop deployments.
No comments:
Post a Comment