It strikes me as rather unfortunate that we’ve reached a point in which it’s literally front-page news when the president is willing to acknowledge that we are not winning the war in Iraq. Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations.
Indeed, it’s now considered progress when Bush dodges the question. Consider this exchange during the president’s lengthy Washington Post interview.
WP: Are we winning in Iraq, in your estimation?
Bush: You know, I think an interesting construct that General [Peter] Pace uses is, “We’re not winning, we’re not losing.” There’s been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it’s amazing — constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself.
Asked about the fact that Bush, just a month ago, announced that we’re “absolutely” winning in Iraq, the president explained, “Yes, that was an indication of my belief we’re going to win.”
So, this is the big news. After nearly four years of this disastrous war, Bush has gone from total confidence that we’re winning, to the equivocating “we’re not winning, we’re not losing.” This is progress?
I’m afraid this isn’t impressive. In fact, over the course of 4,000-word interview, the president gave no indication that he has any idea what to do about the nightmare he created.
Perhaps the most important point, substantively, was the notion of a larger military.
In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. “We need to reset our military,” said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.
Two points. One, John Kerry unveiled a plan to increase the troop strength of the military in 2004, but Bush rejected the idea. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said, “I am glad [Bush] has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces … but this is where the Democrats have been for two years.”
And two, Bush seemed to separate the notion of a larger military from the pushed-to-the-breaking-point military in Iraq, as if the two were separate issues. They’re not. As Oliver Willis put it, “Look, if the U.S. military wasn’t busy babysitting Iraq and trying to build a brand new nation that was never there while getting killed – there would be no military stretched thin. In fact, we’d be ahead in the global fight against terror instead of at the mercy of tyrants.”
Asked specifically if the Army is nearly broken at this point or not, the president said, “The people that would know best are those in the Pentagon.” Way to take a bold stand, Mr. Commander in Chief.
And what about the troop “surge” the White House appears to favor? The Post asked, “Given the election results, is increasing the troop level in Iraq even a viable possibility or option?” Bush responded:
“I think what the people want is — they want a couple of things. They want to see Democrats and Republicans work together to achieve a common objective, and they want us to win in Iraq. A lot of people understand that if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences — in other words, if we leave before the job is done. There are some, a fair number of people, who say, ‘Get out now.’ So I view the election results as people are not satisfied with the progress being made in Iraq and expect to see a different strategy to achieve an important objective.”
The president couldn’t be more wrong; the electorate just isn’t where he thinks it is. 70% of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, not because people want a different strategy, but because Bush rejects the one strategy with majority support — get the troops out of Iraq.
The whole interview is online, but if you’re looking for insights into what Bush is thinking or planning to do, you’ll be left wanting more.