Will Bush's Tragedy Trap His Successor in Iraq?

The essence of Greek tragedy is that protagonists move inexorably to a climax the audience can anticipate before the characters discover their fate. As the curtain rises for Washington's battle over Iraq, Congressional leaders must reject the role President Bush has scripted for them in his Iraq tragedy. Otherwise, in January 2009, a newly-elected president will find himself or herself waist deep in a quagmire that will dominate their one term presidency.

No one should have any doubt about President Bush's overriding operational objective. It is to hand over this war to his successor. In his own words: "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney [his dog] are the only ones supporting me." To this end he will do and say whatever is necessary. But at this point, the president's words hardly matter. Most Americans have concluded, correctly, that on Iraq, President Bush is simply no longer to be believed.

The most credible advocate of the war will be General Petraeus. The best that the American military--and indeed American society-- has to offer, Petraeus is competent, thoughtful, even heroic. "Can-do" at his core, Petraeus will accentuate the positive in whatever is happening, highlight measurable progress and warn against reversing this by premature or precipitous withdrawal.

At the Defense Department, Secretary Gates has signaled his highest priority: to find common ground for bipartisan support of a sustainable strategy. That will require some compromise with Democrats. The terms of a partial withdrawal will be shaped by realities of US Army and Marine manning charts. These necessitate withdrawal of the first brigade (about 4,000 men) no later than April 2008, followed by additional brigades at the rate of about one per month thereafter until reaching a sustainable plateau.

The driver of what will at the end of this act certainly be a change in announced strategy and date for beginning withdrawal is twenty-one Republican Senators standing for reelection in November 2008. With three out of four Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, that Bush is mishandling Iraq, and that things are going badly in Iraq, these Senators cannot campaign on a strategy of support for a sinking ship. Before Congress recessed, Senators Warner and Lugar signaled the necessity for the president to shift tracks. The Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has identified September 15 as the "key time for the vast majority of my members and it certainly is for me."

And what about the Democrats? So far, President Bush has given them an easy pass. They have been able to simply oppose a failed strategy and wrap Republican colleagues and would-be presidential nominees around that mast.

What should the audience anticipate that the actors seem not yet to have grasped? Heated rhetoric from all parties will in the end be followed by a compromise that includes a change of mission and a date for beginning to drawdown. The new mission will transition from "clear and hold" to countering al Qaeda, training Iraqi forces, and protecting Americans still in Iraq. Petraeus will advocate sustaining the surge through next summer; Democrats will urge beginning withdrawal now. My bet is that the compromise will bring home the first brigade by Christmas 2007 and promise withdrawal of an additional combat brigade approximately every month thereafter. Operationally, however, this promise will "depend on conditions," thus leaving the president enough wiggle room for his purpose.

On the ground in Iraq, as American combat groups leave, security will erode. Thus as Americans move out of neighborhoods in Baghdad or areas in Anbar province, the most likely result is a reversion to the conditions prior to their arrival, which, as the NIE of January 2007 stated, will "deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006."

Following this script, the new president who takes office in January 2009 will inherit 75,000 Americans in Iraq under conditions in which security is worse, sectarian divides deeper, and Iraq's government even more dysfunctional than today. If leaders in Congress judge this outcome unacceptable, they must rise up and reject the lines President Bush has given them.

Comments

[Iownpeterbilt]

I keep seeing complaints about congress doing
or not doing something. They are doing what ever
their lobbists tell them to do. Has no one ever
made the connection between reelection funds and
votes. DUH.
I have been trying to convince the people I associate with to never vote for an incumbent.
The founding fathers figured on a citizen congress. They planned that a farmer would go do
a term then go back and run the damn farm.
Voters tell me if they don't vote for [any name] then they won't get their project, I tell
them as a tax payer I don't give a damn. Lets
just stop the tenured social parisites in D C.

[RogueCowboy]

According to the Bush Administration and THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND:
June 24, 2003, President Bush declared al-Qaeda's leadership largely defunct
2003 Mission Accomplished
2004 We are making PROGRESS
2005 We are in the LAST THROES
2006 We should be able to draw down troops starting in Sept 2006
2007 January: A Surge of 22,500 will show significant results by July 2007
2007 July: We are making progress, wait until September
2007 September: We are making progress, wait until September 2008. We have only had the "SURGE" for 3 months.

If we STAY THE COURSE for one more year only 1000 more American Troops will die, 6000 more American Troops will be Wounded, 2500 Iraqi Security Forces will be killed, 10,000 Iraqi Security Forces will be Wounded, 15,000 more Iraqi Civilians will be KILLED, 40,000 more Iraqi Civilians will be wounded, 750,000 more Iraqis will be displaced from their homes, the Iraqi Parliament will meet 3 more of the 2007 benchmarks, still less than 50% of the 18 benchmarks and The GENERALS on the GROUND will report they are making progress and ask for 1 more year. The Bush Administration will ask for anther $200 Billion for 2009.
WAKE UP AMERICA! We should not have our Military trying to referee a CIVIL WAR in a country where democracy is a FOREIGN WORD and may NEVER be achieved.

[disintaGreatNation]

Why is this tragedy labeled "Bush's Tragedy?" Didn't both Democrats and Republicans in Congress vote to authorize the use of force? Don't Democrats keep voting to send money to prolong the war in the name of supporting the troops? Didn't Bill Clinton start the whole regime change thing in Iraq? Didn't practically every American news reporter ignore the antiwar position and instead act as a Pentagon megaphone? Weren't the vast majority of ordinary Americans in favor of launching preventive war? Are the Democrats in Congress doing anything to curb torture and human rights abuses by U.S. security forces?

[NABNYC]

I cannot accept the premise that Bush's war against Iraq can be called "Bush's tragedy." Would we say that Hitler's invasion of Poland was "Hitler's tragedy?" In order for it to be a tragedy, don't we need a protagonist who has some self-awareness, who consciously makes a decision which ends up ruining his life. Oedipus would not step aside to let the old man by.

Bush's war on Iraq is not Bush's tragedy. Where are the negative consequences for Bush? Do you really think he regrets it, or ever will? Have you ever seen Kissinger publicly disavow the reign of brutality and murder he brought about in Chile? Nope. That's because he didn't care then and he doesn't care now. These people don't care if other people are murdered. It's called "collateral" damage. Meaning that as long as it's not them who's being killed, they don't care.

Bush will never feel a moment's regret about invading Iraq. Even if this led to WWIII, he wouldn't care. His only goal was to get money for himself and his oil friends, and to carry out what someone else told him was the "important" work of PNAC.

Meaning to carry on the plan to have the U.S. military attack and destroy as much as possible in the countries of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Iran. And why should we destroy all of those countries? Because Israel wants us to. And that is where the Crazy Christians with their messianic Christian Zionism or whatever bizarre armageddon-themed beliefs come into play. Kill in the name of the Lord. God commands is.

This is not a tragedy. Maybe farce, but there is no one involved at a top level who has the character or integrity to play the title role. How can you have the tragic story of the great man who falls due to his own choice, when you do not have even one great man to play the lead?

[BarnE]

What happens to the price of gasoline in America under all these scenarios?

American voters love to drive.

[thirteen13]

Simple answer, go diesel and fill up with vegtible oil or any kind of used strained cooking oil.

[Kungfublood]

No you are wrong because the horror that is Bush is busy as a beaver printing trillions of worthless money and giving it to people who have been carrying out his ruinous polices. The American people will be to busy trying to survive the neo con economy the one where bush and his friends have trillions in loot and the Americans that he swore to protect are starving and have no work.

[MikeDu]

Lets put the blame squares where it belongs. the Republican party. If Congress has made no progress on Iraq its 100% the blame of Republican obstructionism.

Remember? A couple years ago Repubs screamed and cried over the prospect of Dems going for the 'nuclear option' of using obstructionist tactics to block their more lunatic court appointees. They very nearly drafted legislation to do away with the practice. Now the shoe's on the other foot and RNC tactics have devolved to exclusively 'nuclear option' obstructionism. Resembling Iraq politics in a disturbing way, the Republicans would rather poison the well than let the Democratic party get credit for anything good out of Congress.

Want movement on Iraq? don't get mad a Dems, start voting Repubs out of office.

[thirteen13]

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" said it all.

WE ARE GREAT!

WE ARE POWERFUL!

WE ARE RICH!

If you don't like it WE WILL KICK YOUR ASS!

That is unless you have nukes like Pakistan, the safe haven for terror types.

Bush said the people who did this (911) will be punished and destroyed. We kicked Al Qaeda's ass in Afganistan, the poppy capital of the world. But not Pakistan, why? Is there any oil in Pakistan?

Here's a thought, Al Qaeda has more ass than we have treasure or ass kickers. And sooner than latter the ass kickers will get their foot caught up that ass.

The USAs feet are caught up Al Qaeda's ass right now where they want us.

Thank you Dickhead Chaney and Addict Bush.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

I think that any conversation about Iraq amongst our so-called 'leaders', regardless of party, MUST begin with the acknowledgement of the horrible mistake Bush made when invading. Many people talk about what a mistake it would be to immediately withdraw, and while I disagree with them I do understand that they have valid points, but if we CONSTANTLY remind everyone that we wouldn't be in this dilemma if it wasn't for Bush's criminal acts, I think it would be a little easier for everyone to discuss the issue.

By this I mean, EVERY newspaper article, EVERY blog, EVERY TV news broadcast, EVERY time!

[adzeman]

One thing our coward in chief has mastered in his life, is not taking responsiblity.
I like the idea of taking a page from the GOP playbook. From now on, any reference to the Iraq should be prefaced with "bushs' disasterous occupation. Example: Another 12 US soliers were killed in bushs' disasterous occupation, or in the news today from bushs' disasterous occupation 8 billion dollars has been "lost"... Let's brand the pig with the initials GWB.

[Thurber]

In other words, Bush Jr. is going to "cut and run" leaving the entire mess for the next guy. I remember a time when the most Bush's new administration had to complain against was missing "W" keys on their keyboards and even that turned out to be a hoax.

[fedupwiththis]

"Will Bush's Tragedy Trap His Successor in Iraq?"

Of course it will! That's part 2 of the "government doesn't work" gambit. No matter what his successor does they will be portrayed as incompetent and ineffectual (ala James E. Carter). His successor will have no money to do anything meaningful (taxes have been cut to the bone for those who make enough to pay the big bucks) and we are in debt up to our ears. It will take us decades to dig ourselves out of this, if we ever do! All that time the William Krystals and the like will be snipping at everything not pristine far right claptrap. A pox on them all. They have destroyed my country!

[larry278]

It's useful to remember that anyone who seeks to be elected POTUS also firmly believes that being the guest of an outlaw motorcyle gang's gang rape is an honor. These individuals continue to believe that they have been honored when the become the guest of honor at an outlaw motorcycle gang's rape even when they are carried from the event when they awaken in a hospital bed after extensive surgery has been done to partly repair the damages from repeated, brutal rapes & other brutal assults.

[thinkgra]

I used to agree with you about Petreus as capable and honest, until I found out about his releasing thousands of weapons without bothering to record their serial numbers. Things like that used to get people court-martialed. So many of these alleged "errors," like the understaffing of the initial occupation, the lack of planning, the 5 acre ammo dump left unguarded, make sense as deliberate acts if the goal is to extend our involvement there as long as possible.
And why not? The Neo-cons believe it is essential for us to control the Middle East, and occupying Iraq is certainly central to that, and Good Lord, there's so much money to be made by military contractors, with their no-bid contracts and fat political contributions.
Personally, I've come to believe that the Iraq War is a giant, taxpayer-funded bake sale for the Right Wing.

[provgrays]

The refusal of the Democratic majority in Congress to hold this administration accountable has already guaranteed that the next president will rendered immobile by the Iraq debacle.

The war is at one trillion dollars and counting. Health care for every American will have to wait another 30 years. Our ifrastructure continues to rot, jobs continue to go overseas and we can't even recognize the enlightened principles that fouded this country.

Need you even ask your question? Bush's successor is already trapped, whoever he or she is.