The President's Instincts
The LA Times rounds up the conflicting advice that the president is receiving on how to proceed in Iraq. Among those recommendations is:
"Some military officers believe that Iraq has become a test of wills, and that the U.S. needs to show insurgents and sectarian militias that it is willing to stay and fight. 'I've come to the realization we need to go in, in a big way,' said an Army officer. 'You have to have an increase in troops…. We have to convince the enemy we are serious and we are coming in harder.'"
In predicting what the president will do, the best bet is just to assume that he will believe whatever he most wants to be true. Increasing troops on the theory that the U.S. needs to display superior "will" fits perfectly into his simplistic worldview. He would want to believe this, even if not one Pentagon sycophant could be found to recommend it. He must make some kind of policy change, just to put to rest the charges that he is merely "staying the course." Therefore, increased troops it is.
Bush is still the same man whom hard line conservative activist Bruce Bartlett once described (at eventual cost of his job) as "dispensing with people who confront him with inconvenient facts." Clearly, he has already dispensed with the Iraq Study Group report. The Bartlett quote, incidentally, comes from the same important 2004 article by Ron Suskind (worth rereading) that recounted the following exchange between Sen. Joe Biden and the President.
''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' [Biden] began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''
Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''
posted by Frances @ 8:04 AM
1 Comments:
Well, this President's instincts stink. It was always obvious that of the 3 courses of action he could take concerning troop levels (hold, draw down, increase) that he would, as you point out, increase. The reasons are clear: "hold" is politically impossible because it's not working and he’s promised big changes, and "draw down" would mean he had admitted he lost and was giving up.
After the increase in troops leads to a spike of violence in Baghdad with its attendant increase in US and Iraqi casualties (as it did this past summer when troop levels were increased), John McCain should be pressed hard to withdraw his name from the presidential ring. In fact, the press should already be all over his ass getting him to go on record about what he will do “if” the increase in troops fails. In addition, all the Bill Kristols out there should have their microphones turned off, a hook should appear from stage right and yank them from their newsrooms, and their butts should be sent to the front lines. But of course, the chicken hawks will always just cling to the notion that if we had only sent more troops at the beginning, and had the operation not been run so incompetently, then we could have achieved a "victory." I’ve got news for those folks. The Shia and Sunnis in Iraq will never willingly and peacefully accept long-term American occupation (i.e. a long-term American bases). The Kurds probably will, but only to fend of the Turks and Sunnis.
Speaking of bases, did you catch in Rumsfeld’s memo how he said we should just pare down our bases in Iraq from 55 to 5? I’ve been too busy of late to follow up on whether this particular factoid has been discussed in any large media outlets after Rummy’s memo, but how many articles over the past 3 years in the MSM has anyone seen on the names of these five mega bases, where they are located, and their cost to the taxpayer? I know of only a few sources, the best being a piece by Tom Englehardt (scroll down to "Permanent Facts on the Ground").
Post a Comment
<< Home