Once More Into the Breach!
The “breach” being the President’s ass, his head being what’s going in “once more.” Per the Guardian:
President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make “a last big push” to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations.
Mr Bush’s refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.
Keep in mind that the ISG works for the White House. George Bush is its sole real customer, certainly not any pious abstraction like “the American people.” The Repubs on the panel are going to bow to the President’s will perforce if he puts his foot down. Theoretically the Dems might not, but you have to consider the official Democratic Party’s proven record of cowardice, befuddlement and dithering on the topic of Iraq. I figure at least some committee members will feel duty-bound to sign on to a “bipartisan” report that is, since it’s what the President wants, in truth as partisan as reports get.
“The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate,” said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Translation: the President, and especially the Vice President, don’t want to talk to Iran or Syria. At most they are willing to issue their preexisting and empty ultimata face to face rather than through the media.
Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.
To the certain dismay of US neo-cons, initial post-invasion ideas about imposing fully-fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system, as advocated by Democratic senator Joe Biden and others would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis.
In other words, the ISG is about to get the Democratic Party to sign onto a bipartisan plan to install a junta or dictator. Iraq the Model! of covering your domestic ass politically. Which is important, because who wants everyone to see your ass when you’ve got a great big old head jammed up there?
Now, a field guide: The proposal clearly amounts to nothing more than avoiding the admission of defeat until it’s time for the Bush Administration to leave office. No matter what Poppy and the family fixit man privately feel about the wisdom of starting the Iraq War or the idiocy of its prosecution, they will do everything to bail out their ward. He is their priority, not any quaint notion of the national interest. You’ve got to make the tough choices.
Second: If the troop buildup starts around January it will coincide with the well-known seasonal slowdown in insurgent opstempo. Look for credulous pundits and disingenuous politicos to point to “the drop in insurgent attacks” as proof the policy is working.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
November 16, 2006 @ 8:38 am
Excellent post. Way to cut through the bullshit.
So…what do we do?
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
November 16, 2006 @ 9:00 am
Uncle Kvetch, the best way to answer the “what do we do” question is, I think, to keep our own operational tempo in mind. We’ve just had an election, in which we succeeded as much as was possible. Now we switch to non-electoral means until the approach of the next election. That means attempting to set the background for the newly elected people so that they go along a path that we want them to go on. Basically, if it were possible to call anti-war demonstrations at will, this is when I’d call one, since we’ve just elected the only people who might possibly be influenced by them. But there are many other ways of getting there.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
November 16, 2006 @ 9:58 am
The proposal clearly amounts to nothing more than avoiding the admission of defeat until it’s time for the Bush Administration to leave office.
I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. The planned actions seem to describe preparation for withdrawal in the face of defeat. Talk to the neighbors and install a dictator. I assume the next step is, “Leave.”
Comment by Nell —
November 16, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Rich is onto something. I’d start hammering on your Congressional delegation now, and build as big a contingent as possible for the UfPJ demo on January 27.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
November 16, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Bush meets with panel on Iraq, but not on policy…
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group spent Monday at the White House meeting with President Bush and his …
Comment by Handsome —
November 16, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
Mass protests cannot work until they can somehow bring either electoral or economic pressure to bear. We’re pretty much as far as we can get in the electoral cycle from a pressure point. As to bringing economic pressure, what anti-war movement actually exists nowadays mostly seems to argue in its spare time. Which is to say, nobody does nothin’ in America if it costs them much, in either time or money or especially comfort.
I guess I’m cynical, but I see nothing to make me think or feel any differently. Most people can’t be bothered to vote; those that do, won’t stand in line longer than 20 to 30 minutes to do it. Our best organizational tools are online registration and petition signing campaigns designed to allow people to feel as if they are making a difference by spending a few minutes a week point and clicking.
If it’s not convenient, most of us just aren’t interested… and I hardly excerpt myself from that condemnation.
We badly need a national strike. Or a national campaign to make absolutely no unnecessary purchases until our requirements are met. These are the only things that this Administration, or, most likely, any Administration, will respond to, two weeks after an election. But these things would require effort and sacrifice, and the American people are all about anything and everything but either of those things.
Again, I except myself from nothing; I’m certainly not part of the solution here. I make the same excuses everyone else does — there’s little or nothing one person can do, I need my job, I have kids, etc etc, blah blah blah. All good reasons; much, in fact, the same reasons Jonah Goldberg has for not enlisting in support of his favorite war. Which is really unpleasant to consider, much less own.
Yet, on the other hand, how do you enlist in an effort to stop a war? That’s a little more complex…
Comment by Slim —
November 16, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
You didn’t include all 4 (four!) points in this lovely new four(!) point plan.
So to run down the new recipe as quick as I can, it’s:
1) Add more green foreigners with firepower,
2) Remember, Neighbors should be neighborly,
3) “Can’t we all just get along?”,
4) Add greenbacks and petrodollars to taste.
Serves more than 600,000.
Comment by Barry —
November 16, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
“The proposal clearly amounts to nothing more than avoiding the admission of defeat until it’s time for the Bush Administration to leave office.”
IMHO, this had been Bush’s plan; he’d have no problem leaving the disaster to either a Republican or a Democratic successor. What I figure is (as I’ve said before) that a number of people influential in the GOP have figured that the war is (a) a net negative for the GOP and (b) a worsening net negative. This leads to a pretty good case of electoral disaster for the GOP in ‘08, unless God (or, more likely, a Lower Power) delivers them from their evil. So they’d be pushing Bush to resolve the issue, at least for domestic political purposes.
I imagine what’s adding to that drive (maybe the single strongest force) is that the generals are now telling Bush that there’s an excellent chance that things will actually fall apart in Iraq, in the next two years. And ‘fall apart’ here doesn’t mean that life becomes a living hell for most Iraqis (it has), but that the Army and Marines are forced to fight their way out, or to negotiate a humiliating retreat.
That would present Bush with being the first president in quite a while to preside over a battlefield loss by US forces, and that would probably be the sort of thing that he’d actually care about. Not for the forces, or for the US, or for the Iraqis, but because he’d be known as a loser, on a gigantic scale.
Comment by Walt —
November 16, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
From the point of view of the speediest possible exit from Iraq, I think the best time for massive anti-war protests is not now but right after the Baker-Hamilton report is released. At the moment everyone in Washington is holding out for it to be the Great White Hope. Since the current signs are that the report will be more of the same, that will be the moment to puncture official Washington’s bubble.
Comment by Nell —
November 16, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
Massive anti-war protests aren’t spontaneous. There are permits to get (until the point, which we are very far from in the absence of a draft, of a level of popular anger sufficient for large-scale civil disobedience and permit-less mass mobilization of the kind that terrifies the authorities). There are buses to rent. There are flyers to print.
The UfPJ demo was just moved up to January this week; it was originally scheduled for March 17, the 4th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. I wholeheartedly approve of its being moved forward, to have an impact on the new Congress within weeks of their being seated.
Please: make it your personal commitment to attend, to bring friends with you who haven’t participated before, and to use the interim to generate letters to the editor, letters to your representative and Senators, and demonstrations at the offices of your reps/Senators.
Stop looking askance at what people are not doing, and do something yourself. Your friends and family and co-workers may be inspired to join you, and even to exceed your efforts. Something is better than nothing. Something, however small, is the building block for bigger things. Nothing fuels frustration and guilt and anger.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
November 17, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Nell, I’ll be there.
Comment by Kn@ppster —
November 17, 2006 @ 10:59 am
Don’t hold back, Jim. Tell us what you REALLY think
Comment by Handsome —
November 17, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Knappster,
No, no, Jim said that to Bones. You’re getting it all mixed up.
Comment by John Spragge —
November 18, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Just which war do you oppose? The low intensity but nasty civil war going on now, complicated by the insurgency against the US occupation of Iraq? How about the full-throttle civil war that looks unpleasantly possible after (or before) US troops leave? Then we have the danger of a major conflict between Iran, Syria, and a multi-national (Sunni) Arab force over the remains of Iraq.
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 18, 2006 @ 8:45 am
John, are you restating the “If you really care about the Iraqis you’ll stay” argument?
Comment by Alex from Inactivist —
November 18, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
This is going to sound really cynical, but under the circumstances this is the best we can hope for:
If sending more troops to do “one last push” is what it takes to declare victory and leave, so be it. We need to get out, and the only way that will happen (sadly) is if the President finds a way to save face in the process. So send some more troops at a time when the violence generally declines anyway, fight a few more pointless battles that would be fought even if we weren’t planning to leave, and then leave.
And in regard to installing a junta, under the circumstances that is all that can happen. Healthy and stable democracies only happen when the citizens of a country make it happen themselves. Even then, it can only happen under the right conditions. We have created a mess, a mess in which the Iraqis will not be able to build a healthy democracy.
So with democracy off the table for now, that leaves only two choices:
1) We stay. The largest, most powerful force in Iraq is us, which is both inflammatory (who wants foreign troops marching down their streets?) and a constant reminder that the nominally democratic Iraqi government is not the most powerful entity in Iraq. Stability is impossible under these circumstances, so the violence continues.
2) We leave. The nominally democratic Iraqi government will collapse, no doubt. A strongman or juna will almost certainly emerge from the chaos sooner or later. Hopefully sooner, because the alternative is even worse.
The most we can hope for is that the junta or strongman:
(1) Leaves the Kurds alone (hint: WE SHOULD NOT ARM THE JUNTA OR STRONGMAN!)
(2) Does not support terrorists who might strike at the US.
(3) Allows a private sector to fluorish, one that isn’t solely dependent on oil. Single-resource economies are almost always illiberal and corrupt.
(4) Is not as extravagantly violent as Saddam Hussein.
That’s about all we can hope for in the current mess. And that’s sad.
Trackback by Inactivist —
November 18, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
My gloomy predictions for Iraq…
Jim Henley is blogging about the likelihood that we will send more troops to Iraq, then at some point install a junta and leave. What follows is basically what I wrote in a comment on his blog.
…