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 for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Assuming a Democrat wins the Presidential election. I see that person keeping the troops in Iraq for fear of 'losing' the war which clown man bush will say, further absolving him of blame.
The democrats only hope is to get some BALLS real real soon, impeach bush and cheney for their many crimes and immediately bring the troops home without equivocation.
It is def NOT Bush's "tragedy", but the Iraqi's. If a Democrat attains the presidency in 2008, I would very much like to see America make a very public apology to the Iraqi nation, as well as to the rest of the world.
_
Since the American citizen is no longer being listened to whether it's about the war or illegal immigration, the best thing to happen would be for the soldiers to stop listening to the politicians who are killing them while destroying their country, America, while they're stuck in the hell hole called Iraq.
If the laws of this country are only meant for those who choose to follow them, let's throw the laws away. They mean nothing apparently except as a means to destroy this great nation. Politicians who create the wars and risk the security of this country by failure to uphold immigration laws have lost all credibility . They are a sore on the backside of humanity. Why should one more person die in order for the elites to continue their undisturbed lifestyles ?
If this president, and the next one want to continue the Iraq nightmare, maybe they can start enlisting their children and corporate interest friends. There's enough sacrifice to go around and the time for them to pay up is now.
Well written article indeed. The pitty about all this misadventure in Iraq is that the next US Administration will have to handle that mass with highest difficulties, and that at least three generations of US American taxpayers will have to cover the immense amount of debts cause by this illegal and devastating war, while the ole Bush is filling back his all coffers with lausy speechings based on true lies and thousands of US families are mourning their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, grandchilds and dear relatives, and all that for a war which in fact didn t need to be...
They need to end all the funding for this war. This war is illegitimate and has caused the deaths of many people. The reason for this war was OIL!!! How sad. How so very very sad are all of our politicians and businesspeople and general populace. Maybe Bin Laden is correct. Maybe Americans should convert to Islam. It might help them to make better decisions. On the other hand stoning women to death for adultery is not too nice so I dunno your guess is as good as mine.
This is what I've been saying for a while now -- that Bush is stalling so he can pass his mess, also known as the war in Iraq, to his successor. That successor will probably be a Democrat, who will recieve the blame from the neocon chickenhawks for losing the war when he or she decides to change course and pull the troops out.
Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq is doomed for failure? That no sooner than the next President is sworn in, unless it is someone of the Republican persuasion, they will be blamed for the failure they have inherited? That the leader that does later what should be done now will then be in an inescapable position?
That is why the Democrats should tell the voters before the fact, that they will withdraw our troops. If the people vote for the Democrats, that is what they are voting for. That is a mandate from the people. Let that sink into the thick skulls of every war-mongering Republican that if the people vote for the Democrats in the next election, they are voting a mandate to withdraw the troops. If they have a problem with that, let them discuss it with the American voters.
Eisenhower was elected in 1952 largely on
the basis of his pledge to end the fighting
in Korea. He did, almost immediately.
Nixon was elected in 1968 largely on the
basis of his 'secret plan' to end the
fighting in Vietnam. He did, five years later.
So, are we gonna elect another Repo, when
victory is sooooooooooooooo close we can
almost taste it, or are we going to elect
some 'Peace With Honor' Demo?
It's your call, People.
It is a tragedy of epic proportions. Bu$h has pissed away the world's good will after 9/11 as well as a ton of treasury notes and a slew of American lives. And for what? For private military contractors to walk away with oodles of cash and, he still hopes, his oil buddies to skate off wit Iraqi oil. Where is the American interest, where is the consent of We the People? Nowhere to be seen. We are sick of this crap, sick of being lied to, sick of this government that does not heed the wishes of We the People. And the Dems so far are part of the problem, not the solution.
This country is going down the sh---er and Nero and his pals do nothing but watch it go. Very sad. Shakespearean even.
WE SHOULD ALL BUY CHEAP VIOLINS AND SEND THEM TO THE WHITE HOUSE, SO BUSH CAN FIDDLE WHILE THE LIGHT IF THE USA SLOWLY BURNS OUT.
Bush will keep us in Iraq (and quite possibly get us into Iran) throughout his term. A Democrat MIGHT win in '08 (if the election isn't stolen again) and the Dem President will spend the next four years trying to undue the mess in the Middle East that Bush got us into. Then, in 2012, the Repubs will scream that the Dem President didn't accomplish enough at home and a Republican will be elected in 2012 before the Democratic President has a chance to finish turning this country around and digging us out of the mess the Republicans and Bush got us into. And then, the whole mess starts over again.
Thats the Republican plan, without a doubt.
Once the 2012 elections rolls around they will have a complete lockdown on this country.
To ReThugs these endless loops are served as "Reforms", sounding much more palatable than "leftovers" - what the public will get from them.
Inevitability is a sunrise and grass growing. Politics are neither of those.
Over and over I hear that the Democrats fear the Republican smear machine that will lay blame for a “loss” in Iraq at their feet if they do any of (insert a number here) things. And that is a point that needs further examination. Carefully consider, Democratic reader and leader, that no matter what Democrats do, good, bad, or nothing, the Republican smear machine will still blame you, even if they have to make something up.
There is literally nothing to be lost for trying, and it is the trying that the American people crave. We can deal with a loss as gracefully as a victory if we know that someone in whom we have invested our trust is moving in the right direction.
There is a current, gaping, festering and fetid leadership vacuum in this country the like of which I have never seen. What leadership there is squats remorselessly in the White House and plots how best to assault future historians. His opposition is a poll. His opposition falls to whatever there is of informed opinion in the man on the street. How can we pit Joe Everybody, a lone statistic, against the combined arms of a mercenary army of pundits and pseudo scholars?
If history is the measure, Bush will be damned, but his damnation will be shared by those who thought the wisest opposition was not to oppose. It will not be the first such cataclysm for a nation, just the first such in our nation.
I can’t expect much from the current crop of politicians but more of the same. Given the debacle of the current administration I, personally, would switch from the defense, of the last six point five years, to the offense. But then I’m the kind of guy who has walked up to a man with a gun and taken it from him. Calmed him right down.
Fantastic!
If Shrubhead attacks Iran as he almost certainly will as the last mad act of his reign then he can retire to his place in Texas and history.He is crazy and we all act as if he is sane,including the useless Democrats.Hopefully this illegal war will lead to a change of politics in both parties tho the ball is clearly in the Dems court.They all voted for this including that chancer Hillary,which should not be forgotten
How can this line of reasoning be so clear to you (and me) and yet escape so many Congressional Democrats? How can 55 reasonably well educated legislators travel to Iraq, sit in the Green Zone, be soon fed propaganda by a military anxious to tow Bush's line, and then come back home and play the precise roll this administration has scripted for them? If it is so clear to me and many many others, I have to wonder why "they" can't see it.
My gut is to say the hell with politics. This matter is above politics and sadly the politicians that I support seem more interesting in claiming both sides of the Iraq debate then resolving the present crisis. What we need is some political will and courage.
Whoever is elected should go to the UN and say "Our long public nightmare is over now that Bush is no longer in the WH. I am going to right all the wrongs done by the idiot pretender who preceded me, starting with withdrawal from Iraq and redeploying our troops to hunt down bin Ladin in Afghanistan." He or (God forbid, she) should then ask for UN support in stabilizing Iraq and dividing it into 3 provinces based on the ethnic groups and in stopping the genocide in Darfur.
how different this war would be if Congress' children, Cheney and Bush's daughters were all serving in Iraq
Since the Armed Forces consist of volunteers, it is safe to assume that none in uniform are there because of any kind of pressure from either Bush or Cheney, or from members of Congress.
Conversely, it is a given that the war would be absolutely no different even if the children of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress were the only members of the Armed Forces.
Without a doubt: W wants to turn over the war to the Democrats and create the basis for saying-"Dems r traitors, vote for Republicans in '12". I do think that Hillary will be in deep trouble over exiting the war in Iraq and doubt if the Clintons have the guts to go against this Republican foreign policy decision. My disappointment with Bill, whom I regard as an excellent president in every other respect, is just that. The USA has not left a battlefield without leaving its army behind since '45 unless defeated as in Vietnam. The USA cannot withdraw totally from Iraq without admitting defeat.No Democrat on their own will do that! Faced with the need for ME military bases, oil and a possible confrontation with Iran , I hardly see anything else but Hillary being as stuck in Iraq as Bush. To reverse course Hillary should be forced to outline her policies re ME. At least she will then have the support of the electorate when assuming office.
Loading comments…
Posted September 7, 2007 | 04:40 PM (EST)