I've been reading all day about the leaks hitting the news media about George W. Bush's "surge" option. Remember, it's not a surge, it's ESCALATION just like it was in Viet Nam.....and I thought I'd post a few thoughts on it because, as anything else with the Bush administration, the issues are becoming cloudy and, I think, deliberately OBFUSCATED....
First, MyDD puts it in a political perspective
It's quite shocking to me that at this point in the war, nearly four years after the initial invasion, "many in the military assume privately that a muscular-sounding surge now is chiefly designed to give Bush the political cover to execute a partial withdrawal on his terms later." The fact that anyone -- particularly military leaders -- would believe that George W. Bush is taking any steps that could lead towards the redeployment of American forces is simply amazing. President Bush has staked his administration on the Iraq War, using American troops to prove, as a metaphor, his resolve in the so-called "War on Terror." As such, he cannot and will not, during his tenure in office, remove troops from Iraq.
The President's "surge" proposal ensures just that.
Got that? The "surge" has nothing to do with "winning" in Iraq, because nobody seriously believes that Iraq can be won (at least in any traditional sense of "winning") but, instead as was first leaked last Friday, the surge is designed to give Bush political cover...
Here's where I depart philosophically with most of the other pundits. The fact that Bush has everybody debating the surge IS his victory. And here's the KKKarl Rove genius of it all....George Bush wins whether the surge goes forward or not.
Follow me through on this:
First, on the most obvious level, if Bush gets his way and the surge takes place AND it pacifies Iraq (at least temporarily) he can claim victory and pull out. Of course they have to defeat or pacify Moqutday Al Sadr's militia to do this but....well...we'll see.
Second, if he surges and it doesn't work, he gets to say "we tried our best but the Iraqis couldn't handle their freedom...it's not MY fault....
Here's the good one....If the Democrats succeed in turning public opinion against the surge and/or cut off funding, then, THE DEMOCRATS LOST THE WAR. Or, as has been hinted in certain Rightwing circles recently, IT'S THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S FAULT, because they didn't have the same steely-eyed determination as Bush.
Here's another possibility which has been getting some speculation in the blogs recently. McCain and Lieberman went to the American Enterprise Institute to suggest that the surge has to be BIG and it has to be SUSTAINED (as near as we can tell, McCain is talking about 18-24 months) . This brings us to two possibilities: Either McCain and Lieberman are carrying the Administration's message to the faithful (AEI), or, they were trying to DIFFERENTIATE themselves from Bush to say "Well, he would have won but he didn't follow my advice".
The theory that he's carrying Bush's water for him is held out because....well....let's see, what happens in 18-24 months? What could it be?
Oh yeah, now I remember: Bush LEAVES OFFICE and somebody else has to withdraw our troops from Iraq because that will be the end of the sustained surge. And in the meantime, any criticism of the surge is "premature" because "we said it would take 18-24 months". We'll be asked to "give it time".
Typical Rovian tactics.. George can waffle, weasel, lie, prevaricating, equivocate and worm out of anything......
Maybe impeachment isn't such a bad idea.