Bush was against escalation before he was for it

January 8, 2007

Everyone’s heard the now-famous exchange between Gen. John Abizaid and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) from November, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about sending more troops. What’s sometimes overlooked, however, was the second part of Abizaid’s comments.

The general told McCain, “I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, ‘In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said, ‘No.'” And why were they all in agreement? “[W]e want the Iraqis to do more,” Abizaid said. “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

As Think Progress noted this morning, it’s exactly what the president believed as recently as June 2005.

“Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.”

Sure, it’s obvious that the president is contradicting himself, and it makes for an amusing juxtaposition to contrast Bush’s comments then with Bush’s comments now.

But there’s more to this than just the “gotcha.”

The point is the president had a clearly articulated vision for how to help improve Iraqi security forces in June 2005 — ask Iraqis to step up more, and rely on U.S. forces less. Now he appears to believe the opposite.

That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a problem. Circumstances change, policies adapt. Fine. But it’s incumbent upon the president to explain the evolution of his thinking on this. Why would additional U.S. troops be a disaster for Iraq in June 2005, but be great for Iraq now? Why would it send a signal to Iraqis that “we intend to stay forever” then, but not send that signal now? Or do we no longer care?

If sending more U.S. troops was going to undermine our strategy of improving Iraqi security forces, how will it affect the goal now? Does that no longer matter?

As Atrios put it:

I suppose it would be too much to ask to have someone get a coherent explanation about why more troops then was a bad idea but more troops now is a good idea.

I care about the president flip-flopping (again), but I care even more about getting some basic answers. Bush can believe that more troops would be awful, and he can believe more troops would be helpful, but he can’t believe both without some kind of justification for the change.

I don’t think he has one. I guess we’ll find out for sure on Wednesday night.

There’s no “contradiction” if the (new) commanders are asking for a surge.

  • Why it is such a good idea now?? Because it is a political decision, it is that much closer to the next presidential cycle, and because even Republicans are no longer able to fool themselves that things are going swimmingly.

  • Ummmm… Abizaid, and the Generals he talked to, were all taking the political line- make do with what you have, because your boss- Sec. Rumsfuck- said that you don’t get any more.

    I’d like to hear one of the undersupported troops on the ground back that one up. Frankly, most of them want to get out of Iraq, but, if they have to stay, they’d at least appreciate proper back-up (e.g. enough boots on the ground that they aren’t such attractive targets).

  • More troops was a good idea when General Shinseki asked for them. By the time it rolled around to General Abizaid, it was already far too late.

    The McCain Doctrine of escaling the conflict now is idiocy because the Rumsfeld Doctrine of fighting with too few troops at the start of the war set up a Sisyphean problem because Donnie ignored the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming power in the first place. This war isn’t a conflict of religious ideologies, it’s an internal conflict of Pentagon doctrine.

  • What happened to the”coalition of the willing?” Can’t they produce some soldiers for the escalation?
    ***
    Calling it a “surge” only helps our enemies becuase the word implies it’s only a temporary escalation. Knowing it’s temporary, the “bad guys” will be “emboldened” because they know they just have to wait us out. So unless you’re with the ‘terrists, call it an “escalation” not a “surge.”

  • Because this way he gets another 12 to 18 months (or so say the ‘officially serious’ talking-heads of the MSM) before the success or failure of Operation Super-Surge Me can be judged, and that just happens to take El Residente up to mid-2008.

    At which point we’re well into Campaigning Season, with the future of America’s Occupation of Iraq becoming a problem for whoever wins the Presidential Election, and the El Res can sloch off to Crawford (or Paraguay) without ever having to admit how badly he screwed it up.

    As plans go, it’s a pretty obvious one.

  • Haik:

    D-Day was a “temporary” surge as well. I think I will stick with Bush’s word, thank you very much (“escalation” sounds too much like LBJ losing Vietnam).

  • If Bush could find anything rational to say about Iraq he would have said it already. Right now he’s a deer in the headlights. The coming subpoenas and the 2008 elections have him a bit rattled, so he’s darting back and forth trying to find some cover for the upcoming flushing of more Republicans from government.

    What we have here is a cornered animal, so it’s going to make a lot of crazy moves. I would advise the Dems to get the dart gun.

  • Racerx:

    You mean “rational” as in “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” or “”We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, we will fight them in the hills — we shall never surrender!”

  • Choices for Wednesday night 9PM

    (a) Bush’s address
    (b) Sopranos premiere on A&E
    (c) Spurs v Nuggets on ESPN HD

    Tough call…

  • This is the only way that George Walker Bush, aka the Regal Moron, can hang the inevitable “loss” around his successor’s neck rather than his own.

    That’s okay. I saw no evidence recently that anyone hangs Nixon’s loss in Vietnam around Ford’s neck.

    Historians have a way not caring a fig what the Commander in Chief wants. The beauty of it is that Bush is a relatively young “man” and history is getting written much more quickly these days. There’ll be years and years of pinning the tail on the Asshole. Trouble is the Shrub can’t read, so he’ll never know why people start acting weird when he walks into a room expecting a cheerleader’s greeting.

  • That’s right, Ed. A “moron” who can’t read beat BOTH Al Gore and John Kerry. Keep ’em coming, genius.

  • #11 – yes first episode of the its A&E syndication…

    I will watch the Sopranos, tivo the game, and read about the speech on thinkprogress.org …

  • You can’t ask Bush, what is his strategy for Iraq and get an honest answer.

    In part, that is because Bush has never explained why we are in Iraq, what the goals of his policy honestly are. He’s had a variety of P.R. defenses for what he wants to do, but no honest explanation of his goals.

    In part, this is because Bush has chosen to delegate strategy to his generals. Delegating strategy to various and sundry generals, without even setting out clear goals and objectives, is a recipe for managerial failure.

    What struck me about the bit of Abizaid’s testimony quoted in the post was how indicative of managerial incompetence it was. He’s asking his various commanders for their “professional opinion” about whether additional troops would help to “achieve success”?!? “Achieve success”??? Talk about your empty abstractions.

  • #13 – the fact that Americans re-elected the world famous obvious moron will be a taint on the image of our country and a clear glimpse of the intellect of 51% of voters (now 30%) for years and years to come.

  • I thought the 30% approval rating was for all Americans in general, not just actual voters?

  • The difference in Bush’s mind is simple, to us it’s a fascinating story of regressive incompetence and cognitive immaturity. I truly believe that because of his allowing himself to be manipulated from day 1 of his presidency, what little skills he possessed for reasoning, logic, and management have literally declined over this span of time because he habitually let others make the tough decisions for him, to the point where he literally doesn’t know what to do or how to do it when it comes to making decisions such as the one he’s confronted with now. Let me explain by “putting Bush on the couch”.

    In June, ’05 Rumsfeld and Cheney had not only muzzled everyone but also had Bush convinced he shouuld trust no one, and together they told Bush it’s under control and any other statements to the contrary were not only not true, but proof positive of others ulterior motives to undermine him, Cheney, and Rumsfeld if not all three.

    And this is paradigmatic of what happens when someone in a position of great power allows themselves to be manipulated. That’s especially true when the person is in possession of weak moral character (to the point where Bush is “amoral”) and who completely lacks any confidence in their own decision making abilities. Time and again they allow others to tell them what to do, who to trust, and…most importantly…who not to trust. What you end up with is a very cynical, extremely distrustful, almost paranoid Executive who thinks everyone is out to undermine or usurp them EXCEPT the person who they allow to manipulate and furthermore becomes habituated into relying on others at the cost of losing his own habits of reasoning and decision-making.

    And at some point the Executive will finally figure out what everyone else has known all along: that the insider(s) are usually the chief manipulator(s) and least trustworthy of all. And the solution is not to mend and repair relationships that are based on trust and candor, but rather to reject EVERYONE b/c of the habits of rejection that the manipulator has nutured and developed.

    That’s what we have w/ Bush: Cheney and Rumsfeld had his ear, and were telling him who to believe (them and their hand-picked team of dumbasses: Libby, Hannah, Feith, Wolfowitz, Pace, et al.) and who not to believe (the CIA, the so-called “experts”, State Dept., Powell, all military officers who were not lock-step with Cheney and Rumsfeld, etc.). Now that Bush has awaken to the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld were entirely wrong and manipulative, Bush is dead-set to try and do this his way come hell or high water. His rejection of the ISG, Abazaid, et al. is because he will avoid being burned again at all costs, and coupled with his being habituated to not trust anyone anywhere leads to an inability to process advice that doesn’t already comport with what he wants to do unilaterally. Frankly, I have no doubt that he truly believes that others are operating just like he is while steadfastly refusing to admit that he’s the one who’s fucked up, not them. It’s projection in its purest form.

    He literally does not know what to do other than send more troops…he doesn’t know how and refuses to trust anyone (and in fact those who habituated him turned out more untrustworthy than anyone else). And based his belief that others are influenced by ulterior motives he sees their recommendations to withdraw as proof positive that they want him to fail. So, he’s going to send more troops b/c it’s the opposite of what he’s been told.

    To put it local parlance, “Bush doesn’t have the good sense to know whether to shit or go blind.”

  • Achieve success = More profits for cheney and Haliburton, more money and profits for the military-ind complex and associated industries, more geo-political capital for bu$$hCo, and eventually an Iraqi client state w/ a puppet government that bows to the will of Amerka (why did I say ‘eventually’?) There’s more to his majesty’s idea of success, but that’s a good start.

  • #1

    There’s no “contradiction” if the (new) commanders are asking for a surge.

    And when these commanders come out against escalation, Bush will just shop for some new ones – again. Tell me Thomas, how many times have you been suckered into a 3 Card Monte wager?

  • CB writes:”But it’s incumbent upon the president to explain the evolution of his thinking on this.” You should know by now that Decider believes not in evolution but in divine intervention (aka “the first thought that comes into his head). God has told him that this is the way to go and God is obviously desperate.

  • One should remember that Bush is like a Bass. The moment you get it in the boat, it likes to “flip around a lot.”

    Or is that “flop around?”

    Aw, heck—I’ll be fair to both terms, and call it “flip-flop around a lot.”

    ***I thought the 30% approval rating was for all Americans in general, not just actual voters?***
    ——————————————————Thomas

    Actually, it’s much worse for the under-18 crowd, as NCLB stands for “No Child Likes Bush.” He can’t get a photo-op with a child unless the child is detained for him by members of his “ReThuglican Guard.” Kinda like Saddam a number of years ago…eh?

  • I think Thomas is a Dem who is just bored with all of it. His heart isn’t in it. He hasn’t defiled a dead soldier or a 9/11 widower, so I know he isn’t a modern day republican.

  • As others have noted, the escalation/surge is for the simple reasons:

    1) It gets BG2’s policy past 2008 so he can blame the next guy for losing Iraq like Nixon’s boys could blame Ford,

    2) It screws John McCan’t by proving “the McCain Doctrine” to be no more valid than BG2’s policies. Not that McCan’t isn’t fighting back as well as he can by calling for a larger and longer commitment than the Army and Marines can provide, thus covering his ass.

  • Send more soldiers and Marines to die in the Bush-Cheney HellHole is disgusting. I am so fed up I could spit! Today on the CBS News they were showing troops from Georgia who had left for their 3rd tour in Iraq. I almost wrote Viet Nam so you can guess my age!! 3015 are not enough dead troups for this White House I guess. And as for spending another Billion on reconstruction after the waste of all the other billions is the sign of insanity…doing the same thing over and over again expecting differant results.

  • What all this does is guarantee a Democrat the White House, since we will still be mired deep in the “Republican-caused” war on election day 2008. The voters will be in a nasty mood after having their wishes thwarted for another two years and toss out most of the Republicans that are left in the House and Senate.

    • Comments are closed.