The New York Times ran a key front-page story yesterday on what appeared to be an important breakthrough on the administration’s policy towards the war in Iraq. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Bush gang can’t decide if the story is accurate or not.
The NYT noted that administration officials are drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country.
Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.
Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.
There are at least two major problems with this. First is the intra-administration confusion. The NYT story hit the paper’s website on Saturday afternoon, prompting officials to call the Washington Post to shoot it down. The WaPo reported that “White House officials denied [the] New York Times report,” and quoted Frederick L. Jones II, a spokesman for the National Security Council, as saying, “The story is not accurate.”
In contrast, Dan Bartlett, a top Bush aide, effectively confirmed the NYT story this morning on CBS, saying the article about timelines and benchmarks “was stating something that we’ve been talking publicly about for months.”
If this has been the policy for months, why did White House officials deny the story in the first place? Maybe because the right hand doesn’t know what the other right hand is doing?
And then there’s the other problem: even if “benchmarks” are a part of the policy, there’s reason to question whether the Bush gang is prepared to take them seriously.
The NYT article, which Bartlett suggested reflects White House thinking, said the administration “would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it,” though a withdrawal of American troops is off the table. Like Billmon, I don’t know what that means.
If a withdrawal is still off the table — as by all appearances it is, even for Jimmy Baker — then what sort of “change in military strategy” could possibly constitute a “penalty” severe enough to induce Maliki and his entire cabinet to commit political (and quite possibly physical) suicide?
Is Gen. Casey going to threaten to hold his breathe until his face turns blue?
The same thing came up way back in March, when the president suggested he’s getting a little impatient with the progress — or lack thereof — in Iraq. He wants Iraq to know his expectations, but not to hear a word about consequences. He said Iraq needs to “get governing,” but he doesn’t say what happens if it doesn’t. The same thing is happening now with this so-called “blueprint.”
In this sense, the entire exercise is meaningless. It’s like the old joke about the unarmed policeman seeing a criminal and shouting, “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!” The administration tells Iraqis, “Stabilize your government! Or we might ask again sometime soon!”
Ultimately, all of this sounds like political theater anyway. Bush and Rumsfeld continue to believe their “policy” is the right one, and the White House concedes we’re going to be in Iraq at least through his presidency. Officials can establish all the timetables they want, but all indications are they’ll be empty and meaningless.