It’s hardly a secret that the Bush White House plans to hand over its mess in Iraq to the president’s successor. Short of Congress cutting off funding for the war, which seems unlikely, the president expects to have at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2009. At that point, this disaster will be someone else’s problem, not Bush’s.
At this point, however, the president not only wants to stay the course between now and then, he also wants to figure out a way for the next president to also stay the course, whether they want to or not.
In an interview for the new book “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.’ ”
Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”
“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”
Bush told Bill Sammon, “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”
Sammon also talked to a “senior White House official” who argued that Iraq could become a disaster under a Democratic president, who would be held responsible.
“One of two things will happen if a Democrat gets elected president,” the official said. “They will either have to withdraw U.S. troops in order to remain true to the rhetoric — in which case, any consequences in the aftermath fall on their heads. Or they have to break their word, in which case they encourage fratricide on the left of their party. Now that’s a thorny issue to work through.”
As Kevin Drum responded, “If Iraq fails, all the consequences will fall directly on Democratic heads. Democratic heads. With a capital D. You can almost feel the knife twisting. Do you think he managed to deliver that line to Sammon with a straight face?”
For what it’s worth, Bush is apparently preoccupied with this subject. Resigned to the fact that his policy will not produce positive results over the next 16 months, the president is apparently convinced that staying the course in 2009 will still be the right call. As he sees it, Bush is Truman, Iraq is Korea, and his successor is Eisenhower.
As Bush was describing his thinking about Iraq and the future, he indicated he wants to use his final 16 months to stabilize Iraq enough and redefine the U.S. mission there so that the next president, even a Democrat, would feel politically able to keep a smaller but long-term presence in the country. The broadcasters were not allowed to directly quote the president, but they were allowed to allude to his thinking and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News later cited the analogy of Dwight D. Eisenhower essentially adopting President Harry S. Truman’s foreign policy despite the Republican general’s 1952 campaign statements.
“He had kind of a striking analogy,” Stephanopoulos said of Bush on air a few hours after the lunch. “He believes that whoever replaces him, like General Eisenhower when he replaced Harry Truman, may criticize the president’s policy during the campaign, but will likely continue much of it in office.”
It is a striking analogy, in large part because it’s wrong.
First, Eisenhower did not continue the most unpopular aspect of Truman’s foreign policy — the war in Korea, then in its third year, grinding in stalemate, with 50,000 American troops dead. During the 1952 campaign, Eisenhower pledged, “I will go to Korea,” and he did just that, on a secret trip in late November, soon after the election. By the end of July 1953, an armistice was signed; the fighting stopped. […]
Second, Eisenhower did continue Truman’s broader foreign policy, but Bush should be careful about citing this as an analogy for today.
It is true, during the ’52 campaign, Eisenhower and the Republican Party lashed out at Truman’s policy of “containment.” John Foster Dulles, Ike’s foreign-policy adviser (and, eventually, secretary of state), was vehement in his opposition, proposing instead a policy of “rollback”—of actively liberating nations that had fallen to Communist rule.
It is also true that, after he became president, Eisenhower ignored Dulles’ rhetoric and proceeded with containment. (In 1956, during the Hungarian revolt, for instance, he decided not to send troops or air support on behalf of the rebels, despite much pressure to do so. He also declined to replace the French in Vietnam after their rout at Dien Bien Phu.)
In this sense, Bush has been what Eisenhower might have been, had he followed Dulles’ advice. His doctrine of pre-emption, which rationalized the invasion of Iraq; his agenda of promoting freedom over stability, as articulated in his second inaugural address; his depiction of the war in Iraq as a moral clash of good vs. evil—these are all in the spirit of Dulles.
If Bush’s successor is a Democrat, it is extremely unlikely that he or she will follow that course.
Something to look forward to.