‘Discontent doesn’t translate into a major course correction’

November 30, 2006

Just to follow up on the previous post, it’s probably worth remembering that no matter what anyone, anywhere, says, the president still believes “stay the course” is the only way to go.

You could be forgiven for thinking there was something big in the works. President Bush is holding a three-way summit in the Middle East. Washington’s political insiders are swapping leaks about forthcoming studies on Iraq. Even the network news anchors are flying halfway across the world.

So the White House is ready to change course in Iraq, right?

Not quite. The president and his senior staff arrived in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday with a deep sense of discontent about the direction of Iraq. But that doesn’t translate into a major course correction, no matter what the pundits — or the Democrats, or James Baker’s study group — suggest. Somewhere between Stay the Course and Reverse Course lies Bush’s new approach. Call it Adjust the Course.

Except that’s not a “new approach” at all. Way back in August, Ken Mehlman was harping on the notion that between “stay the course” and “cut and run” lies “adapt to win.” Given this, we’re still stuck right where we’ve been for months.

As Newsweek put it, “No matter what the result of the midterm elections, nor the conclusions of James Baker, there is only one commander in chief, and only one decider. And his decisions on the big things in Iraq seem set in stone.”

In other words, nothing is going to get Bush to change course. Nothing.

There was some speculation, which I largely bought into, that the president was aware enough of the disaster in Iraq that he was looking for a face-saving way to accept reality and consider policy options that, until now, were entirely off the table. The ISG, in this scenario, wasn’t going to offer the White House a new strategy, so much as it would free the president to make the changes he knew he’d have to make anyway.

Except this scenario was wrong on both counts. The ISG lacked the wherewithal to make hard decisions, and even if it outlined a real, effective strategy, the president was going to ignore it anyway. He’s made his disastrous decision and he’s sticking to it. Troop withdrawals? Off the table. Timelines? Off the table. Benchmarks? Off the table. Diplomacy with Iran and Syria? Off the table. Keep making the same mistakes we’ve been making for years? Now you’re talking.

Back in 2000, Bush’s senior aides used to say that pundits spent too much time parsing Bush’s words. Instead of looking for hidden meanings and ulterior motives, reporters should take him at face value, they said. As he reviews his Iraq policy, Bush’s face is an open book. He has no intention of leaving Iraq, or abandoning its prime minister. Naive or not, Bush still hopes that Maliki may yet grow into an Iron Man of the Middle East.

First, hope is not a plan. Second, even if those hopes turn out to be wrong, it doesn’t matter, because The Decider won’t let facts get in his way.

This morning I received an email from peaceteam.net, asking for email action to ask Congress to repeal the AUMF statute, which Bush has “used” as his justification for invading Iraq, authorizing torture, for wiretapping Americans without warrants, and for holding detainees indefinitely without charges or trials.

If successful, it wouldn’t do much to swerve Bush away from “staying the course” (I believe he’s planning to keep US troops there until everything calms down so the oil giants can get into those undeveloped Iraqi oil fields), but it would give America and Congress another leg to stand on about Bush’s violations of the Constitution and short-circuit his push to attack Iran. Wonder how he plans to handle asking Iran to “help out” with Iraq and bomb them at the same time?

  • Adapt to Win = Hopelessly trying to catch up with the enemy while denying the deteriorating conditions on the ground.

    The problem with the Bushite talking points is they neither make a strategy nor define a goal. “Victory” is neither a strategy nor a goal. If it was we could just hang Saddam today and leave.

    The Bushites have a vision of Iraq that the Iraqis willing to stay and die in Iraq don’t embrace. There may be hundreds of thousand of Iraqis in Jordan and other neighboring states who want a unified multi-sectarian multi-ethnic democracy but the problem is they are in Jordan (or the Green Zone). The people “living” in Sadr City or Anbar Province have a much bloodier solution to the “Iraq Problem” and everyone who says that the Sunni and Shia sects are too intermixed in Iraq to seperate is ignoring the ethnic cleansing and mass murder that is ongoing in that country.

    I waiver between two beliefs. Either Boy George II is going to wait for Saddam to be executed and pull out then claiming victory or he will never pull out and blame his successor for “losing” Iraq even though it’s entirely BG2’s fault that we will “fail” in Iraq. Under no circumstances, no matter what James Baker tells him to do, do I expect Boy George II to leave Iraq in a competent fashion that perserves Iraq’s integrity and civility (not that there is much of that left).

  • What exactly is the course? The fabled they stand up and we strand down strategy used to be the course, but then the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades gladly answered the call and infiltrated the security forces. I haven’t heard what replaced that. W should fill us all in if we are, in fact, waiting around for four horsemen to appear.

  • No, they shouldn’t revoke the AUMF – that would just give ammunition to the stab-in-the-back theory, which is being rapdly constructed by the Right right now. Remember, the (false) belief that Democrats in Congress “lost” Vietnam is ingrained in wide swaths of the US public, 30+ years later. Let’s not give them the same ammo this time. Democrats in Congress are in no position to manage a withdrawal from Iraq, even if they wanted to. It’s Bush’s mess, he has to clean it up, and Dems should give him no excuse for why he can’t.

  • BC

    Repealing the AUMF wouldn’t put the Democrats in charge of Iraq. That’s Bush’s china shop.

    It would remove Bush’s “pre-authorization” for attacking Iran, for instance, and move the responsibility for declaring war back to Congress. It would also be a Congressional vote of no confidence in Bush.

    I think it’s an excellent idea.

  • Bush is determined to stay in Iraq and hand off the mess to his successor. However things over there are deteriorating so fast that he may not manage this. His pigheadedness in insisting on keeping troops there may result in the inevitable withdrawal coming without preparation, and indeed may force a fighting withdrawal under heavy fire. Such a withdrawal would result in large numbers of U.S. casualties, huge numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties, and the utter humiliation of the U.S. It would also very badly damage U.S. military capability as lots of equipment would have to be left behind.

    Bush’s greatest talent lies in his ability to always choose the path to the most horrific possible outcome. In the Iraq withdrawal, he’s likely to exercise this talent yet again.

  • Nice, jimBOB, but let me offer this slight revision:

    “Bush’s ONLY talent lies in his ability to always choose the path to the most horrific possible outcome.”

  • Bush’s talent lies with his lack of intelligence and amazing ability to choose the least attractive option of all options presented and make further decisions that narrow the field of options even further to virtually nothing.

  • In other words, nothing is going to get Bush to change course. Nothing.

    In saner times, this would be a strong justification for the impeachment of a president who attacks and overthrows a sovereign nation, and kills over a half million people, all without justification or authorization.

  • Bush’s senior aides used to say that pundits spent too much time parsing Bush’s words.

    Don’t forget that this was completely wrong with regards to his handling of the Plame outers, whose identities and crimes he knew full well, and he used that knowledge to Clintonianly phrase his promises.

  • In other words, nothing is going to get Bush to change course. Nothing.

    Not true. Congress de-funding the present course will get Bush to change course.

  • It would also very badly damage U.S. military capability as lots of equipment would have to be left behind.

    [jimBOB]

    Which might explain the reluctance to properly equip the soldiers. Actually I’m only being slightly snarky because you make a good point: If the US is booted out by Iraqi forces (or just mobs of people who’ve had enough of their unwanted guests) we would effectively arm a country that hates our guts. Then what? Go back and bomb them?

    As for Bush palming this off on his successor or the Democratic majority…I know he’ll try it but I can’t see it working. I suppose he could say the Dems forced him to withdraw but he seems too emotionally invested in declaring victory (again) to do anything of the sort. As for blaming who ever comes after, that might work for the tiny, tiny minded faithful who think he walks on water. For the rest of the planet, unless he can pump some memory-erasing drug into the nation’s water supply he’s stuck with that particular aspect of his legacy.

    Here’s what I think will happen: Maliki is becoming the Iron Man of the Middle East (but won’t that mean he has an iron fist, the trademark of the despot?) he’s getting pissed off and doesn’t want to be Bush’s fall guy or puppet. I’d say within a few months he gives Bush the finger, teams up with Iran and Syria and comes up with a solution that doesn’t include US soldiers or US access to oil.

    Additionally, I know there was talk, pre-invasion of making Iraq pay for our services (with oil). But that was based on the idea that there was WMD in the country and it would be a “cakewalk.” Now, you can bet Iraq will tell the occupying nations to get stuffed if they mention the cost and fight long and hard to prove that ShrubCo lied in order to start a war. We might wind up in a situation where every country that took part in Operation Iraq Liberation is after ShrubCo. Not that the thought of world leaders calling for bits of Bush on a platter this makes me laugh or anything.

  • “Congress de-funding the present course will get Bush to change course.” – Ohioan

    A course seemingly advocated only by Pat Buchanan. He practically begs the Democratic Majority to de-fund Iraq. That would get us out of a war he opposed from the start and let him blame the Democrats for the “failure”.

    Funny how Pat can’t seem to blame Boy George II for his mess. Apparantly in the Buchanan house when the child creates a mess its the nanny’s fault, even if it was her day off.

  • Wrong, Lance – apparently you’re overly fascinated by Pat Buchanan. Peace coalitions across northeast Ohio embrace this position. Dennis Kucinich posted this position on his home page as well. Stop watching Mr. Has-been Buchanan and step out into the grassroots…

  • Why are we focusing on democracy in Iraq? The reason we’re there is OIL, OIL, OIL! What is actually getting done? Embassies, bases, oil projects. Focus on the energy. This is Dick Cheney and the oil industry. The military stuff is a side show and a cover for them. How are all the energy projects going? Can anyone expand on that?

  • I can understand people’s worry if we de-fund the war: “Ooh, right wing gasbags will be able to paint Dems as troop-haters.”

    To that I say well, right-wing gasbags will do that anyway. We hold the power of the purse, and we need to say we will fully fund ANY plan whose basis is the same timeline for withdrawal that a MAJORITY of Americans are asking for. But we will NOT fund open-ended committment. The choice is the President’s…

  • The subject of Iraqi oil is worth some thought and discussion. As if the problem weren’t bad enough now, our leaving Iraq in total chaos is likely to render one of the world’s greatest reserves inaccessible to anyone.

    Personally, I’ve been strongly for an intelligent, conservationist energy policy for years, and such a “dilemma” might encourage energy reform. But I doubt it.

    Do we ever hear “energy policy” mentioned? Nope. And until we come up with an effective one, we’re going to be stuck in the Middle East forever.

  • “Wrong, Lance – apparently you’re overly fascinated by Pat Buchanan. Peace coalitions across northeast Ohio embrace this position. Dennis Kucinich posted this position on his home page as well. Stop watching Mr. Has-been Buchanan and step out into the grassroots…” – Ohioan

    Well I’m sorry to hear that you’ve all lost your minds in Ohio 😉

    There has got to be a better way to get our troops out than to threaten Boy George II with a cut off of funding for operations in Iraq. If for no other reason than I don’t want to listen to my dumbass nephew claiming that His generation could have won their war if only my generation hadn’t stabbed them in the back (he actually told his own father, who served as the commander of a nuclear submarine, that it was that generation’s fault [I’m a little too young for Vietnam] that they lost their war but that his generation aren’t going to lose their war.).

    So yes, I worry that Americans will be convinced (again) that it’s the Democrats fault we lost a war that BG2 has already lost.

    That said, Ohioan, if you can write the resolution to say that we will fund operations that will end before BG2’s term ends, I’m all for it.

  • “…our leaving Iraq in total chaos is likely to render one of the world’s greatest reserves inaccessible to anyone.” – Alibubba

    Wow! Mega-Tons of carbon dioxide not spilled into the air in our lifetimes. Isn’t that a situation to be prayed for?

  • we would effectively arm a country that hates our guts.

    The most powerful U.S. weapons are also among the most gold-plated, and require training and major logistical support to remain useful. I doubt that Iraqis capturing them will be able to do much with them. The kinds of things that this civil war can use are simpler, like AK-47’s, RPG’s and high explosive.

    As for Bush palming this off on his successor or the Democratic majority…I know he’ll try it but I can’t see it working.

    I didn’t say it was a GOOD plan 😉 It is Bush we’re talking about here, after all.

    Ohioan is right, the Wurlitzer will blame the Dems no matter what we do or don’t do. And the most fanatical of the wingnuts will believe it. As they say, you can’t fix stupid.

  • Well I’m sorry to hear that you’ve all lost your minds in Ohio

    Well can you fricking blame us? It is an uphill battle against the brindead media, and if we can get a few of our ‘dumbass nephews’ to open their eyes, it will be worth it.

  • I’m not sure the Dems can effectively de-fund Iraq even with the legislative power to pass or fail funding bills. For one thing most of the Iraq War has been fought with funds that were not part of the budget. Plus Presidents have access to all kinds of money in other ways. And last but not least, the Supreme Court would probably shoot down an effort to defund Iraq.

    I’m not hopeful in the defund direction.

    PS Is anyone keeping an eye on the powder keg that South America is becoming?

  • “Is anyone keeping an eye on the powder keg that South America is becoming?” – Dale

    SOUTHCOM in Miami if we have any luck.

    SOUTHCOM used to be located in Panama City until the commander noticed that every visiting South American dignitary flew through Miami to visit him. They decided to move to the real capital of all Latin America, Miami Florida 😉

  • PS Is anyone keeping an eye on the powder keg that South America is becoming?

    Don’t worry, once the Bush Twins get out of there things should calm down. 😉

    As Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show things are bad when a former haven for escaped Nazis asks you to GtFo.

    Or did you mean the fact that Mexico is sliding towards meltdown mode and Ortega is screaming “Iiiiii’m baaaaaaack!”

    • Comments are closed.