About the only issue where President Bush has stayed firm and resolute in his decision making is Iraq. Of course, he hasn't been effective in Iraq, he hasn't allowed our troops to be as effective as they can be, and he hasn't deployed nearly enough troops for the situation, etc - but all that is beside the point - because he may have decided to give in to Republican Senators about announcing a troop withdrawal date! Bill Kristol elaborates:
The New York Times leads today with David Sanger's story, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback; Political Considerations; Not Waiting For Sept. 15, Aides Seek to Forestall G.O.P. Defections." The piece is tendentious, as one would expect--but THE WEEKLY STANDARD has confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called "The Grand Bargain" pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq. So this week will not only be a week of (mostly silly) debate on the Hill; it will also be an important moment of truth for the president, who will have to decide whether to give Gen. Petraeus and the soldiers a chance, or to accept the counsel of some of his advisers and begin to throw in the towel on Iraq.
Let me be clear: The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month. If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts.
Indeed, the White House is living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that "compromising" now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he's actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this.
What's more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States.
The best strategy for the president is to hold firm.
... more
President Bush has a history of accepting his advisors bad advice and totally ignoring the people and military leaders. If he capitulates now, it will doom his presidency completely in the eyes of history.
2 comments:
There is simply no way out that will let the US stay out.
Yes, you have a point, Deuce. But, it won't stop Bush and Congress from making mistakes.
We will be involved in the ME forever, basically; just at different times, and mostly for the wrong reasons, and without determination and real purpose.
It's like I a conversation I overheard; "it's a good thing we aren't facing the Nazis, or we would be in trouble!" - HA!
Trouble is, we are facing the Nazis (aQ) and we're in big trouble! Consistently having NO BALLS will kill us in this situation and I can think of no national leader that has a pair.
Post a Comment