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

[NWGuy]

Bushco wants to pass on the Iraq mess as they know that who ever has it last, owns it. They know that when the dems take over in 2008 that history will remember that the dems will be the ones that look bad and those that started the whole mess will be forgotten. Repubs can say that Bush should be honored for his glorious battle for democracy in the middle east and blame the dems for messing it up by leaving without victory. (Regardless of the facts!) All the repubs have to do to make the dems look bad is stand in the way.

The next president, if democrat, should be damn clear that this is Bush's war, it's Bush's mess, and it's Bush's tragedy. He or she should not ever try to 'own' the war in any way. He (she) (and all democratic legislators) should repeatedly state that it is Bush's mess that they are having to try to clean up. It should get to the point that the MSM evens starts stating, "The Bush War in Iraq has taken seven more American lives."

Bush wants a legacy, give him Iraq and make sure it sticks.

[LizM]

To answer your title question...that would depend entirely upon WHO that successor is and whether or not he is capable of providing the intelligent and courageous leadership that will be required to implement a muscular diplomatic offensive to facilitate a sustainable political settlement, in conjunction with a redeployment and reduction of US forces and change in mission.

Absent the success of a political process like this, the next President will have to implement a whole other kind of plan...one that will withdraw all US forces and civilians - including all Iraqi civilians who have assisted coalition forces - with a focus on containing the conflict to within Iraq's borders in an effort to avoid an unpredictable regional conflagration.

'Make Hope and History Rhyme'...Biden/Hagel 2008 It's written in the stars

[Joeseo]

Tragedy? Oh no! Travesty, yes in unlimited ways.

Bush/Chaney have made all we Americans criminals. We are in Iraq permanently.

[Doofus]

I feel like I've been writing about this
strategy for a long time now. Compare GWB's
present situation with LBJ's in 1968. LBJ
evidently decided that *he* couldn't win the
Vietnam war, but rather than 'lose' it, he
turned the problem over to Nixon, who was
willing to take on the problem of shutting
down a catstrophe, which he did, though it
took him 5 years. This is how LBJ 'saved' the
Democratic party from the stain of a Vietnam
defeat. The Republicans then saved themselves by
claiming they achieved 'peace with honor'.

GWB can still in effect turn the problem over
to the opposing party, if the election next
year is lost to the Democrats. That solves
the Republicans' immediate problem, to NOT
lose the war. Should the Republicans win next
year, they will STILL have to fight the war
until it's won, by a Republican president.

If the Republicans win next year, they will
still have to win the war. If the Democrats
win, they will have to achieve something
like 'peace with honor'.

The main thing is, NEITHER PARTY WILL ACCEPT
BLAME FOR LOSING THE WAR. The Democratic
strategy at this point may be to let the
Republicans stay around for a few more years
so they can win it (the war), rather than win the
Presidency FOR the Democrats only to lose the war.

[Rescisco]

An excellent post by Professor Allison. Doofus is right on also. This is only the end of the beginning in Iraq, not yet the beginning of the end.

BTW "Barney" never supported the initial decision to invade Iraq. When he heard the justifications for it he said "that dog won't hunt." Turns out the administration has been less than truthful about Barney's position. Go figure.

[matandch]

What the hell are we talking here a football game? Wins -loses- ties. Typical American way of thinking..."the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat." Can this debalce really be won or lost? What define a win, what defines a loss? Will the clock run out? Who determines the score?

[indypete]

Unfortunately, that's the way it's perceived by a lot of people. A lot of other people see it as a means of making huge profits. Those of us with a conscience get very upset about it. And the poor, honest, brave, hard-working schmucks wearing the uniform get to die for a hopeless, intangible, non-exsistant cause just like their fathers in Vietnam.

[lisakaz]

Indeed. And Bu$h claims he has a vision. Delusion is more like it. He thinks he's Knute Rockne. I think Vlad the Impaler is closer, frankly, but feel free to make your own comparison.

This isn't a baseball or football "war" and lost players don't head to a DL list or to Dr. Andrews or injured reserve. The consequences has Bu$h in fantasyland and I wish Lil Bu$h (really B$ or Bu$hit) never graduated from Candyland.

[disintaGreatNation]

Doofus, you don't know $#@^ about history. On the eve of his election, Nixon contacted Thieu, and convinced Thieu to stay the course rather than help Johnson negotiate an end to the Vietnam War. Nixon prolonged the war. Not just once, either. He knew he couldn't throw in the towel until after he was reelected in 1972.

[dochemlock]

I've been asking or should I say telling myself this since 2003. He has destroyed a country, a government, and an army, not to mention what he's done to Iraq. This will definitely destroy the next president. We deserve it too. We didn't learn a thing from Vietnam except how to silence the critics. Nobody stood up to stop this.

[researcher]

amen well stated

[laocoon]

Many of us have done what we could. there have been voices urging sanity from the lead up to the war. I have personally seen protest in the streets . Obviously we did not do enough by definition. But I disagree that we ALL deserve this.

[frost]

.

No..

but if Hillary Bush gets elected.. count on more misery and more excuses..
.

[DavidJames]

The problem will be with us until we acknowledge and deal with the political(religious) problems of Iraq. I hate to say this, but embracing Islam may be the only way out of this.

Perhaps a congressional resolution reconfirming that we are a secular nation, with freedom of religion. Then we would need to specifically embrace Islam as a country. Perhaps we could add a crescent to our flag. This would symbolically recognize Islam without a specific religious recognition.

The Stars, Stripes and the Moon!

[whathehell]

Perhaps Americans are capable of embracing both Israelis and Arabs, for a change. We are constantly being forced to pick one or the other, but never both. It's time to show respect to Muslims and acknowledge the suffering we've inflicted on them for over fifty years. Is that too much to ask?

[tiggersthotfulspot]

America *apologize*? Not gonna happen.

[Truetuft]

Good point, whatthehell. The perception that the US has favored Israel and has treated the Palestinians unfairly for years is what fuels hatred of the US by many Muslims. Because the US is so powerful and we say believe in Human Rights and "Freedom" yet we deny Palestinians those freedoms and rights makes us look menacing and unjust in the eyes of many. By not forcing our ally Israel to find a just peace with a Palestinian State, we fuel the hatred and increase the anti-American recruitment of young Muslim men into terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Mr. Allison states the obvious. But like his Greek tragedy, treats the fate as immutable, with nary a suggestion as to what alternative course the protagonists should undertake.

Just as there are no good solutions in Iraq, the Dems do not seem to be able to imagine, let alone implement, any good alternatives to the White Outhouse script in which they have to date accepted their role as court jester.

Gawd ferbid they forment mutiny today; they would rather run against Bush for all the tomorrows the DNC can foresee.

All the more reason to impeach Bush and Cheney now. See you in DC on September 15. Send a message to the reluctant "Greeks" in Congress.

There is no time to waste in exerting the will of We The People in defense of our Constitution.

[Yukon Jack]

Impeach both Bush and Cheney!!

Two for the price of one.

PRESIDENT PELOSI has a real nice ring to it.

[dennidus1680]

You are the only one mentioning this. If Bushco gets away with this criminality, what will the next executive try? Do we really want any president to have this kind of power? Who's agenda is this and what do they gain and we, the people, lose? I would submit that if they are not held accountable, we are lost as a democracy. These are the people that got a free ride under Nixon and look what they brought. I shudder to think what the next batch will bring.

[hopeless277]

But those are the only lines anyone has written for them. Anyway, they don't care as long as they get reelected. Oh, and Iran will be in nuclear winter too. You forgot that.

[GMC360]

Nuclear winter is a theoretical global threat and would not just be in Iran ... but it made me think that maybe it could be used strategically to offset global warming. hmmm, let's put the boys in the basement on that.

[SensibleAmerican]

Annhilating more than 7 million Jews was not Hitler's "tragedy", it was his "criminality", if you get the drift! It was a tragedy for the Jews, just like it is a tragedy for the Iraqis!

Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator but there was some method in his madness! Now, there is just pure chaos which will simply get worse as time goes by and especially when our troops depart. That this war can destabilize the entire region is not a question of "If" but, "When"!

Ofcourse Bush will run the clock on this one and will leave it to the next President, possibly a Democrat. Bush will stick to his guns, The Democrats will protest, the left wing nuts will protest the protestors and the right wing nuts will await "rapture" in the middle east!

With the amount of stench this President is leaving behind in every aspect, facet and Institutions of his government, the next President, again, hopefully/probably a Democrat will not have even the slightest room for error

[GordonDR]

SensibleAMerican writes: "Annhilating more than 7 million Jews was not Hitler's "tragedy", it was his "criminality", if you get the drift! It was a tragedy for the Jews, just like it is a tragedy for the Iraqis!"

YES, exactly. Allison's article unfortunately reveals the same myopic America-centered view as the Bush admin's policies display. Allison sees how terrible those policies are, but doesn't quite manage to escape the unexamined premises that underlie them. Too bad the Constitution doesn't require that anyone who wants to be President must have lived outside the US for at least two years and must have mastered one language other than English.

[Einstone]

I'd settle for a President who had simply mastered English.

[tiggersthotfulspot]

The myopic America-centered view is *shared* by the vast majority of Americans. The majority said they favored the war (when it started) and the majority returned Bush to the White House even after he committed the war crime of aggression by invading Iraq.

Too bad the Constitution doesn't require American *citizens* to get a passport and meet some of the people we're now killing.

[laocoon]

In the end it was tragedy for the German people too. Hitler's agenda and preemptive militarism eventually led to Germany's conquest and rape by Russian armies.

[lapoutlander]

Definition from Answers.com
trag·e·dy :
n - pl
(1)- A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances..
(3) A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life: an expedition that ended in tragedy, ...

Both fit Bush and his Policy exactly (except that we don't believe he is sorrowful). As for the Iraqis there are many words to express their horrible circumstance so why use just one?

[jbatch]

In Allison's tragedy, the protagonist who gets gored is the democratic party, not Bush. As the Dems watch this farce unfold and work diligently to avoid whatever smidgeon of negative feedback for "not supporting our troops" might be forthcoming, they set themsleves up for getting tarred with the entire massive failure that is Iraq.

If Bush succeeds in punting Iraq to the next President, then Bush walks away from the steaming pile of excrement that is Iraq, and the next president -- and the party he or she belongs to -- walks right into it.

That's the future our too-clever-by-a-half political strategists are consigning the Democratic Party to. Brilliant.

[felix2]

Unfortunately, I think the main character is us- Americans. We did in fact elect Bush twice. Or at least a little over half of the 40-64% of us that voted. Does that mean that 21-33% of Americans eligible to vote put Bush in office? Twice? This does seem to show a "tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances" on the part of the citizens of this great nation, both those who voted and those who did not. I'm not discounting the election fraud, but we need to look at ourselves and say "what the hell is going on!?"

[darcy]

Good article. I have virtually no hope now that the Dems will grow a set and stand up to the abominable shrub. The whole mess is very much like a Greek tragedy, as you say.

Unfortunately, there are real people dying.

[uscitizen]

What decision would I make if my life or the life of my child was on the line?

By this simple test, we can judge the moral and ethical fiber of our country's leaders.

One must believe that a day of judgment is coming for those who so cavalierly use human life as the grist to feed selfish ambition and political gain.

[avergejoe]

No, I think that bush is determined to bomb Iran before he goes, making things infinitely worse. He's got nothing to lose. And the next prez would be hard put to justify such acts.

[DRaymond]

It is fairly obvious that Bush's only 'strategy' these last two years has been to stretch this out enough to have the ultimate failure be blamed on his predecessor.

Unfortunately the democrats forcing him out sooner than then is going to get spun the same way.

[liarsliar]

After this scenario was discussed by the WH inner circle Karl Rove retired.

The meek shall inherit the Iraq...

[dadw5boys]

GROW A SET?
You should know the law by now. 51% is not 60 votes to pass a law and no where near 65 votes to over ride a VETO.
What would a pair do besides get sweaty and itch with 50 or 51 votes?

[tiggersthotfulspot]

It's enough votes to pass a spending bill that includes no money for the Iraq war. So the bill gets vetoed? Then the government has to shut down. Since the government is doing nothing but borrowing money on our behalf and using it to kill people, that's the best outcome.

[StopThePlanet]

You need to know the law. You can pass a bill with a simple majority but it takes a 2/3rs majority to override an inevitable veto. That being said, the Senate and the House should still show their opposition by passing bills that will be vetoed. It shows the public that our legislators are doing what we ask and it shows the White House that Congress won't just lie down. And the reason that is not happening is because every politician is bought and sold. The will of the people means nothing.