On Tuesday’s edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod mentioned that he’s spoken with some White House officials about possible changes to the president’s policy for the war in Iraq. He added what should have been a rather startling comment.
AXELROD: Well, the White House is in quite a bind, Katie, because on one hand, it has to project some sense of resolve, certainly to keep appealing to its base. On the other hand, they read the polls, and they know that voters want a change in Iraq policy. But as far as any significant change, a White House official tells me, do not expect to see anything significant prior to Election Day. Quoting, “You’re not going to see anything before November 8th. It would be political suicide, and Karl Rove would never allow it.” (emphasis added)
COURIC: But why is it political suicide if so many people are unhappy with what’s going on in Iraq? You would think that to save their hides Election Day, they’d want to change course.
AXELROD: Because this president is known, if for nothing else, for his resolve, for — even though they’re trying to stay away from the phrase — staying the course. So to make such a significant change in two weeks’ time I think would open — introduce more problems than suggest answers.
You mean, a White House official admitted that the administration is making tactical decisions about the Iraq war based on domestic political calculations? You don’t say.
Notice, of course, that the CBS report barely raised an eyebrow. Katie Couric followed up with a question, but on a different point entirely. No other news outlet repeated the quote from Axelrod’s source, despite the fact that it effectively conceded what most of us have known for years: that the Bush administration allows political considerations to dictate its strategy in Iraq. The revelation that Rove would “never allow” a meaningful change in a failing policy seems so obvious and self-evidently true, the political world hardly finds it noteworthy at all.
Media Matters’ Jamison Foser said today, “The idea that much-needed changes in Iraq policy would be put on hold for political reasons until after this fall’s election is reprehensible.”
Of course it is. I’m afraid, however, that the nation is getting used to it.
Long-time readers may recall news coverage from two years ago this month, which highlighted the fact that U.S. efforts to mount an effective counter-insurgency in Iraq were put on hold — because the White House feared rising casualties might undermine Bush’s campaign.
The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi — where the insurgents’ grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest — until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
“When this election’s over, you’ll see us move very vigorously,” said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Once you’re past the election, it changes the political ramifications” of a large-scale offensive, the official said. “We’re not on hold right now. We’re just not as aggressive.”
As Matt Yglesias noted at the time, the president’s strategy was not only foolish, it literally increased the chances of U.S. casualties.
But it didn’t matter. It was just a few weeks before an election, and the Bush gang had political concerns on the top of their minds. It’s two years later, but the same people are allowing the same motivations to dictate their decision making all over again.
When it comes to the reckless and breathtakingly irresponsible execution of a war, at least the White House is consistent in its callousness.