I’ve got to throw in my “2 cents” on the Bush legacy!

21. October 2008 by admin.

I’ve just finished reading “The War Within” by Bob Woodward and I need to comment while the thoughts are fresh in my mind. This book is a very interesting expose’ of the decision to “surge” the troops in Iraq in the face of a national election that repudiated the “Bush Doctrine” of wars of choice to further our “national interest.” I was one of many who were shocked that the new democratic congress, freshly installed by voters across the country, would allow this to happen. Bush’s actions didn’t surprise me as much as their inaction and lack of courage. I fully understand why they “caved;” they had their eye on the prize which was the 2008 election which will happen in two weeks (actually it’s happening all over the country as I write this post with early voting - a topic for another day). I, therefore, consider them at least partly culpible for the over 1000 troops who have died since the “surge” was announced. However, the process Bush went through to make this decision was very interesting, and I’m sure if Bush had it to do over again, he would have done things quite differently prior to the surge.

I need to start this by saying that I believe the motivation behind the decision was his legacy - although you’ll never hear that coming from his lips or anyone close to him. The reality is that he is willing to sacrifice as many people as it takes to achieve something called “victory.” And it is my belief that whenever they figure out the definition of victory, it will be something that would have been “defeat” before this whole fiasco started. I will explain that statement in more detail shortly.

According to the many accounts of this invasion that I have read from sources on “both sides of the isle” the invasion of Iraq was poorly planned and the occupation was, in essence, not planned at all. The chain of command has been blurry at best, the key people in key places were not in tune with each other and they had little knowledge of what they were getting into. I say that with one exception. I believe that Colin Powell knew what was going to happen - he used analogies like “if you break it, you own it.” I don’t believe that Bush, Cheney, or anyone else directly involved in the decision gave Powell any credibility. In fact, they used him for their own purposes in an unseemly manner (which is why Powell has clearly been angry for the last 4 years) and they eventually said to Powell the equivalent of “don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.” I’m saying all this to point out what most people know, that the planning and execution of this war was an exercize in incompetence.

Prior to the 2006 mid-term election Bush finally began to figure out that things weren’t going very well. The rate of casualties of Americans was setting new records each month and Bush was measuring our success by how many Iraqi’s (bad guys) we were killing as opposed to how many Americans (good guys) we were losing. All anyone needs to do to understand the level of incompetence is to replay some of the public speaking appearances Bush gave during this time. His assault on the syntax of the English language will probably be legend long after he’s out of office. I often wondered how we could elect someone so inept (of course then here comes McCain - but I digress :o). During this time he responded to questions about his decision making (”I’m the decider”) by saying he used his “gut” to make decisions. In an earlier book Woodward asked him if he consulted his father, former President Bush “the first”, and he responded that he consults a different father, a higher father. This approach had understandably made millions of Americans very uneasy and opposed to his policy in Iraq.

As the election approached Bush began to consult with a retired general, Jack Keane, who was as determined to “win” as Bush. He was the source, along with a general who was teaching at West Point during the early years of the war, with the idea of the so-called surge. And I do have to give Bush credit in the sense that this decision was not of the “hair-brained” caliber which would describe most of the earlier ones. It took several months and a lot of brainstorming and disagreeing between various members of Bush’s inner circle to come up with the plan. However, as I read the book my impression was that the two people who drove the decision were Keane and Bush’s National Security advisor - the replacement for Condi Rice who replaced Powell as Secretary of State - Stephen Hadley. They convinced Bush that this “strategy” was the only chance to “win” in Iraq. Of course, at the time it really wasn’t a strategy in the real sense. Their plan was to put David Patreas in charge in Iraq, give him 5 additional brigades and try to get control of Bagdad. As I read the book, much of what Keane said was possible to Bush has evidently happened. The violence has subsided, and the amount of American casualties has dropped significantly.

While Keane was debating positions offered up by others, he said things like - in response to the argument that our forces were stretched thin and to do this surge would require tours in Iraq to be extended to 15 months - “that is what happens in time of war.” “That is what the troops signed up for.” “We can’t afford to lose another war, we have to do whatever it takes to win.” I found his thought process and his determination to be quite admirable. But he’s looking at it from the point of view that no matter how many lives we lose, it’s worth it to win. And I would have to say that if the war was legitimate, and if there really was a “victory” out there, I would probably agree with him. I believe that if he had been in charge from the beginning things would have turned out differently. But in my opinion, by the time we “surged” the troops, victory was finding a way to get out of Iraq without “losing face” similar to what happened in Viet Nam. Most of the generals in Iraq were veterans of Viet Nam - and most disagreed with both Bush and Keane. And while there are some positives about this, I don’t think there’s any way we willl ever be able to claim victory in a situation where another two or three years of sanctions (maybe less) would have brought down Saddam Hussein without the huge price paid by both countries and without enabling Iran to become a major “player” in the region.

One thing that has happened that Bush wanted was for Prime Minister Maliki to gain strength as the leader of Iraq. I believe that has happened and he is showing signs of being in a semblance of control, but there are many problems inherint with this that nobody’s talking about. First, I fully believe that if Maliki does get a firm hold on Iraq, it is just a matter of time before the alliance with Iran becomes stronger. To me, the biggest potential nightmare as the result of this misadventure will be a united Iraq and Iran. I know that many people think the Iraqi’s hate the Iranians, but keep in mind that Moqtada al Sadr is in Iran right now studying to be the “Grand Ayatollah” of Iraq - and he has a huge following in Iraq that is not going away just because our government wants them to. I believe al Sadr is “laying in the weeds” so to speak for a triumphant return. Also, the “hatred” of Iran was generated by Hussein’s Sunni government and the Shia will be in control for the forseeable future. Considering the makeup of the region, from an Iraqi perspective and alliance with Iran will ultimately strengthen both countries

When the US essentially hired the Sunni insurgents who had been killing our troops to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq instead, the so-called Sunni Awakening, the reduction in violence began. McCain and everyone else associated with the republican party want to blame the surge for the reduction in violence, and it did help, but without the Sunni’s taking the fight to Al Qaeda in places no American wanted to go the violence would still be at alarming levels. Once the US started paying and arming the Sunni’s (keep in mind, these were essentially the same Iraqi’s who were in Saddam’s army that the US disbanded after the original invasion), al Sadr - he’s a very shrewd, intelligent, and dangerous man - told his followers to back off. With the exception of a short battle in Basra (southern Iraq, a Shia stronghold) where Maliki tried to send a message that he was willing to challenge Shia extremists as well as Sunni extremists - and Maliki was forced to call a truce before his troops were embarassingly defeated by al Sadr’s followers, Moqtada al Sadr’s devotees have been laying low; in my opinion biding their time until he returns in about three years - according to most of the reports I have read.

My point is that as I read “The War Within” I couldn’t help but be impressed with the process that Keane and his associates came up with to attempt to “win” this war. Bush didn’t seem so inept as I went from page to page. And I believe that Woodward did a good job of just reporting what happened. I’m happy that someone was allowed into the White House so there is a believable history of this decision. I certainly think it will prove valuable at some point in the future. However, I still think their thinking about winning is flawed. Both Bush and Condoleeza Rice are obviously, as you read, concerned about their legacy and are betting that history will bail them out of one of the poorest decisions ever made by one of our presidents. From Keane’s perspective, I believe he is a true patriot - he’s not looking backward, only looking forward. It didn’t matter how we got there, the fact was we are there and we have to find a way out that doesn’t include the word “losing.” The problem I have with that thinking is that in the long run I see losing written all over Iraq. There is still no reconciliation between Sunni’s, Shia, and Kurds. We have armed the Sunni tribesmen to the teeth. They could continue fighting us or the Shia at any time. I see no way they just lay down their arms and accept Shia rule - I hope I’m wrong about this, but it just doesn’t seem plausible to me. And finally, Moqtada al Sadr will be back and I believe he has every intention of controlling Iraq in an alliance with Iran. Ughh!!! He has a huge following of people who will gladly give up their lives for the “cause.” These are the people (religious fanatics) who were brutalized under Saddam Hussein - which is ironic that we toppled his government ostensibly to free al Sadr and his followers from the tyranny of Saddam, and now they are our “enemies” trying to free themselves from our tyranny.

Just like how Bush/Cheney would never admit that Iraq’s oil was the main objective of this invasion, Bush will never admit that the surge was about protecting his legacy. I’m sure that Bush believes history will clear him of any mistakes because Iraq will ultimately end up a free democratic county and will initiate a wave of freedom that will transform the middle east. All of this, of course is pure speculation, although I have to say again - to me 1100 of our finest along with untold numbers of Iraqis - giving their lives - just since the beginning of the “surge” - can’t be justified to save the “face” of America and the legacy of George W. Bush. The more I thought about this as I read Woodward’s book the more I felt that I’ve just got to throw in my “2 cents” on the Bush legacy.

Posted in Politics | Print | No Comments »