When it comes the administration’s approach to the war in Iraq, there’s obviously no clear sense of what Bush’s “Plan B” might look like, but moreover, it’s never been clear whether the president’s team even thinks a backup strategy is necessary.
In January, Condoleezza Rice told senators that it would irresponsible to even consider the possibility of the escalation strategy failing. A month later, Robert Gates said the opposite, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I would be irresponsible if I weren’t thinking about what the alternatives might be.” In March, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace was back to Rice’s approach.
Indeed, during a White House meeting two months ago, a group of governors asked the president and Pace what they’d do if the escalation strategy failed. Pace had a simple way of summarizing the administration’s position, Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) recalled. “Plan B was to make Plan A work.” This was echoed by surge architect Fred Kagan, who wrote, “I argue that there is no Plan B because there cannot be one.”
The WaPo reported yesterday, however, that administration officials insist there is an alternative policy — they just don’t want to say what it is.
Participants in Tuesday’s White House meeting said frustration about the Iraqi government’s efforts dominated the conversation, with one pleading with the president to stop the Iraqi parliament from going on vacation while “our sons and daughters spill their blood.”
The House members pressed Bush and Gates hard for a “Plan B” if the current troop increase fails to quell the violence and push along political reconciliation. Davis said that administration officials convinced him there are contingency plans, but that the president declined to offer details, saying that if he announced his backup plan, the world would shift its focus to that contingency, leaving the current strategy no time to succeed.
As far as I can tell, this is the first time that Bush has acknowledged, even vaguely, the existence of a Plan B. I’m just not sure if it matters.
The reality is Bush, if he really has some kind of backup strategy, might tweak around the edges, but he’s shown no willingness to fundamentally reconsider his approach to Iraq policy.
As I argued earlier this week, for all the talk about the need for a Plan B, war supporters seem reluctant to acknowledge that they’re already playing their last chip. The current policy is a) exactly what they said they want; and b) exactly what they said would work. There is nothing else. They wanted this general, with these battalions, with these conditions. If the plan fails, they’ve failed.
Besides, I’m not an expert in military planning, but my sense is that Pentagon officials are constantly drawing up contingency plans for just about every imaginable scenario. They have war gamers crafting just-in-case scenarios all the time, and have done so for decades. When administration officials suggest there are “contingency plans,” they may very well be referring to basic military adjustments, not wholesale change.
The Post report specifically noted Bush believes the political world would focus on Plan B immediately, if he were to divulge it, and he hasn’t given up on Plan A yet. I’m not buying it — if the White House discussed its fallback policy, it doesn’t matter what the political world “focuses” on, Bush is still going to do whatever he wants. What does the White House care if politicians insist on transitioning to Plan B? The answer can stay the same as it is now: “No.”
Given this, I suspect Bush suggested there’s a Plan B just so he could get through the meeting and stop the lawmakers from yelling at him. It’s not about a backup strategy; it’s about public relations.
If the White House wants to prove otherwise, terrific. Host a classified briefing for the congressional leadership from both parties and describe this secret policy. I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.