There should probably be a moratorium on the use of the phrase “surprise visit to Iraq.” Every time a top administration official arrives in the country, it’s a “surprise visit” — because security conditions require that no one know about the trips in advance. After a while, the phrase is just redundant.
With that in mind, Bush landed at a dusty air base in a remote part of Anbar province this morning, on route to his APEC meeting in Australia.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the trip was conceived about six weeks ago when top White House advisers began discussing Bush’s role as Congress returns to Washington and debate over the war heats up. It was decided that progress in Anbar made it the perfect place to showcase the administration’s strategy.
There has been a drop in violence in Anbar, where Sunni tribal leaders and former insurgents have teamed up with U.S. troops to hunt down al-Qaida and other extremists.
Anticipating criticism that Bush’s trip was a media event to buttress support for his war strategy, the White House was ready to push back.
“There are some people who might try to deride this trip as a photo opportunity,” White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. “We wholeheartedly disagree.”
Nonsense. The White House is gearing up for another political fight with Congress, the administration wants to downplay news that the Brits are pulling out of Basra, Petraeus’ p.r. campaign is in full swing, and Bush thought another publicity stunt might help him politically. Indeed, it certainly doesn’t make any sense to tout the success of the surge strategy in Anbar, where the surge has played no role in improved conditions.
As for the rest of the White House spin:
Hadley said Bush wanted to hear personally from commanders and from al-Maliki himself.
“There is no substitute for sitting down, looking him in the eye, and having a conversation with him,” Hadley said. “The president felt this is something he had to do in order to put himself in a position to make some important decisions.”
Does anyone seriously believe this? Videoconferences are now insufficient; Bush has to look these people “in the eye”? Why, because they’re more inclined to deceive during routine briefings? Please.
I wholeheartedly agreed with James Joyner’s take:
My guess is that the time when publicity stunts like this could have much impact on the debate has long past. When the president went for that Thanksgiving visit in 2003, it was greeted with euphoria, generating a substantial amount of good buzz. At this point, though, it may just come across as desperate.
It also serves as another example of presidents using the troops, especially those deployed to war, as political props. It’s a time honored tradition, going back to at least Harry Truman, but one that raises questions of politicization of the military.
Again.