Bush surges into irrelevance

This week Bush admitted that the war was not going well. In early November we were still hearing wildly upbeat expectations mixed with scowling "you'll see" imprecations. Six months down the line, Bush has done a 180, though conditions are virtually the same as when he was confident that we were 'turning the corner".
All hopes have been pinned on this ill-defined "surge", which was initially supposed to be 21,000 troops. Then it became 21,000 combat troops with an equal number of support troops. It was supposed to six weeks, then six months. I think now we are hearing that the surge will basically last for the remainder of Bush's term in office. So, after strenuously denying for years that more troops were needed and watching as Iraq collapsed, now Republicans are equally strenuous in claiming that all Iraq needs is more troops (and the remainder of Bush's term) in order for "victory" to be achieved over the "terrorists".
The electricity is still only on for six hours a day in Baghdad. Virtually everyone with skills or money has fled the country to become a burden on the "terrorist" state of Syria. The hospitals are in the hands of a Shiite militia, who has no problem with denying care to Sunni patients. The central government, designed by Republican "visionaries" to be weak to prevent another Saddam from emerging, can barely hold a coalition together to give Al-Maliki enough authority to tie his own shoes without permission. The flood of 1000 people a day fleeing Iraq has slowed significantly, but this is because anyone who can leave already has, and this is virtually the only 'positive' development in the past six months.
Eight British soldiers killed this week, at a time when Britain was withdrawing because their strategy of hiding in bunkers had led to a "stabilisation". Britain really needs to get it's troops out so that they can move them to another Bush mess, Afghanistan. After the Taliban were routed, Bush put on his rose-tinted glasses and, not surprisingly, saw a bright future of democracy, human rights, and economic development. He then went to NATO and asked for troops to shepherd this fledgling democracy for a few years. NATO provided sufficient troops for that job, but the situation was not as Bush had sold it. The simple act of participating in an election had not magically transformed Afghanis into peaceful, saintly people eager to make Bush look good. In short, NATO was handed a steaming bag of crap and told that Afghanistan was their baby now.
So now Britain is stuck in horrendous quagmires in two countries in which their vital interests are not at stake. This came about because Tony Blair more or less handed over command of the entire British military to Bush. And Republicans are convinced that whatever allies we have left won't take this as an object lesson in what happens when you let the U.S. make you its bitch.
So as we stumble into a world that Bush warns is fraught with more danger than ever, we have virtually no allies, we pour our foreign aid into three countries (Israel, Egypt, and Colombia) that do absolutely nothing to enhance our security, and hyper-extend our exhausted military into pointless wars with the populace. And if we stop doing this, we'll "look bad".
Meanwhile, this week O'Reilly made a statement that essentially said that we must give Bush the rest of his term to make Iraq right (why? who knows) but that if he fails, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. It looks like the GOP are already planning on throwing Bush to the wolves, since they're done with him. What will this make of the loyal "Brownies" or the foreign politicians who supported him (Blair)?
So what will transpire is that, should Republicans hold on to the White House, they will blame the war on Bush, and then continue fighting it 'the right way' until the same thing happens to the next stooge they line up. The important thing is to keep the flow of money to the military contractors.
In short, everyone is now looking at Bush as a temporary obstacle or annoyance rather than as a factor in the resolution of these conflicts.