In a column otherwise directed at congressional Dems, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, best known for being Bush’s chief speechwriter in his first term, is willing to acknowledge some flaws in his former boss’ Iraq strategy.
History seems to be settling on some criticisms of the early conduct of the Iraq war. On the theory that America could liberate and leave, force levels were reduced too early, security responsibilities were transferred to Iraqis before they were ready, and planning for future challenges was unrealistic. “Victory in Iraq,” one official of the Coalition Provisional Authority told me a couple of years ago, “was defined as decapitating the regime. No one defined victory as creating a sustainable country six months down the road.”
It’s a rather passive approach to criticism. Gerson isn’t willing to say he takes issue with some of Bush’s decisions; he’s willing to say history is rendering judgment.
Perhaps, as Attaturk noted, that’s because Gerson was integrally involved with some of the mistakes which he’s reluctantly conceding. Gerson was, after all, a member of the White House Iraq Group, which was responsible for helping shape the Iraq strategy in 2002 and 2003.
In dismissing Democratic plans for withdrawal, Gerson notes, “No one can confidently predict the outcome of a precipitous withdrawal, but the signs aren’t good.”
Better to listen to the speechwriter and the White House that’s been wrong about every aspect of the war to date, right?