Bush’s Plan
What will President George W. Bush propose for Iraq when unveals his latest approach in January? Based on recent news accounts, I think the following is a pretty educated guess.
(1) We will raise troop levels by about 20,000, at least temporarily.
(2) We will negotiate and manuever diplomatically with various voting blocs of the Iraqi Parliament to shore up the Prime Minister’s position, even without the support of the Sadr block, because:
(3) We’re about to engage in a new offensive against Sadr-linked militias, and possibly against Sunni insurgents in al Anbar province.
The strategy behind these moves will be to improve the security situation by undermining the political support that allows Sadr’s thugs to murder at will, and to have enough troops to ‘hold’ troubled areas until Iraqi forces can truly keep the rogue elements from returning (this requires, of course, a simultaneous purge of Sadr loyalists from government ministries and the Iraqi police).
It’s a tall order, but at least it’s not the ‘managed surrender’ that has become all the rage.
That’s my best guess, at any rate…sometime in January, when Bush makes his announcement (I would imagine with a prime-time speech), we’ll see how close I came…
I do not believe that foreign policy can be set by referendum, and the responsibility to manage foreign policy lies squarely with the President. However, if Bush escalates the war in the face of the recent elections and the overwhelming public disapproval of the war, he will isolate himself even more from the electorate he governs.
While Bush admitted to a thumping, he neglected to mention that the fiasco in Iraq is the largest cause behind the Democratic shut-out. A poll this week reported that two thirds of Americans surveyed wanted Congress to make decisions for Iraq, and only about one fifth wanted Bush to do so. Political leaders are supposed to be responsive to the wishes of the electorate, and by continuing to double down despite the consensus to withdraw, his administration will be even more marginalized and distrusted by those whom it purportedly serves.
Peter, the stakes are too high to withdraw. The public is weary and wants to withdraw, but even the Democrats in Congress (most of them) know that we cannot now. The question is, if we have to stay, under what conditions? Clearly, the status quo is unacceptable.
The biggest single problem in Baghdad is lack of security. The biggest reason for that is Sadr’s militias. Ergo, we must hit them, and hard – and up until now, we’ve been prevented from doing so by Maliki, who believes he cannot function without Sadr’s support.
Thus, we must show him he can. The strategy has the force of logic behind it. It will be very difficult, and it may not work. But it’s not mindless, and it’s not irresponsible…
There is a wide spectrum between immediate withdrawal and escalation — my point is not that we should pull out all of the troops (my preference would be for a plebiscite, whose wishes we would follow) — rather, it is that to escalate in the face of overwhelming opposition is a breath-taking thing.
In matters of life and death, I think it is wrong for the President to choose a course of action which is diametrically opposed to the wishes of the majority of his countrymen.
In matters of life and death, I think it’s wrong for a president to worry about his own popularity above all else and therefore make decisions based upon opinion polls.
A bit of a tangent, but here goes: if you want a pure democracy
“Political leaders are supposed to be responsive to the wishes of the electorate,”
“I think it is wrong for the President to choose a course of action which is diametrically opposed to the wishes of the majority of his countrymen.”
you are living in the wrong place.
It is not the responsibility of our elected officials, including the President, to do the bidding of the electorate – especially as defined by polls. It is his, and their, sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and defend the interests of the Nation to the best of their ability. If the people are dissatisfied with their performance they can vote them out – as they did this last time around.
To be fair, Peter does say “I do not believe that foreign policy can be set by referendum” but the argument that follows contradicts this assertion.
The President has about two years left on his term in which he will, rightly, continue to do what he thinks is best. And that’s a big part of why I like him; even if I think his execution has been less than optimal.
My response would be that there is a big difference between fighting a war and a highway bill. George Bush isn’t sending his kids off to die — he is asking families across the country to bear a burden which very few people believe in. He is asking all of us to fund a war which the great majority of us are opposed to. To blithely dismiss the wishes of the electorate and move in the exact opposite direction – and escalate! – is cavalier at best and despotic at worst.
There is something unique about prosecuting a war which, in my opinion, requires a consensus which supports it.
I don’t think this is about Bush’s popularity — which is in the tank as it is — or opinion polls (it’s public opinion, not the polls themselves. The fact is that he is doing something very few people want him to do.)
As for doing what he thinks is best: when you have a leader whose judgment is as flawed as his, then the last thing you want is for him to continue to do “what he thinks is best.”
Peter, please – Bush isn’t sending anyone’s kids off to die. You’re treating our soldiers like infants.
No one can send even THEIR OWN children off to die; we have an all-volunteer army…
Of course it’s a volunteer army — nonetheless, every coffin which comes back has someone’s kid inside –
But they made the decision to enlist, Peter – they weren’t forced to. Every car accident that results in a fatality has someone’s kid in it, too. No one wants to see soldiers die – least of all the president. Such is the ugly world we live in…
I’m not trying to pick on you, Peter, I’m just calling attention to the outmoded ‘sending kids off to die’ thinking – that phrase was very popular in Vietnam, and it made sense, because we had a draft.
With no draft, it’s nonsensical…
The historical view is notoriously myopic. At the time of the Civil War many questioned the appropriateness of fighting over the issue of slavery, suspension of habeus corpus was an issue, and, certainly, the horrific death toll. It was not a broadly popular war. Yet, today, Lincoln is lauded as one of the, if not the, greatest Presidents in our history. He is widely regarded as a leader with few, if any, peers.
Which is not to say I believe GWB is of a type with Lincoln – time will tell but my suspicion is that our current President will be viewed favorably but certainly not ranked about the fourth quintile (second from the top).
My personal view is that having removed the clear and present danger that was Saddam Hussein (self-identified through his foolish bellicosity) and determined beyond doubt that there was no hidden cache of WMD, nor any broadly active plans to create one, we should have retired from Iraq. Our President and Congress made a different choice – to attempt a democratization of Iraq – as a means to stablizing the region and providing us with long-term security and freedom from threat. It is still too early to know if that attempt has succeeded or failed.
I won’t argue the point about “doing what he thinks is best” other than to say that I make that point in contrast to doing what is politically expedient and popular. I don’t want my President doing that at all.
Egads, the president’s speech has already been leaked.
[...] Yesterday, I laid out what I consider to be Bush’s soon-to-be-announced plan. Charles Krauthammer sees it the same way: First, as I’ve been agitating, establish a new governing coalition in Baghdad that excludes Moqtada al-Sadr, a cancer that undermines the Maliki government’s ability to work with us. It is encouraging that the president has already begun such a maneuver by meeting with rival Shiite and Sunni parliamentary leaders. If we help produce a cross-sectarian government that would be an ally rather than a paralyzed semi-adversary of coalition forces, we should then undertake part two: “double down” our military effort. This means a surge in American troops with a specific mission: to secure Baghdad and (together with the support of the Baghdad government — a sine qua non) suppress Sadr’s Mahdi Army. [...]
Like any parent, I can’t imagine anything worse than burying a child. It’s a tragedy whether it is because of a car accident, cancer, or a roadside bomb. However, the difference is that we have the ability to control deaths from war. This is especially so in a war of choice, such as Iraq.
When you send soldiers off to war, some will die. Whether the soldiers were drafted or enlisted is not germane: the relevant fact is that by sending troops to battle, Bush made the weightiest decision any President can make.
My point is only that this is the one decision which ought not to be made unless there is widespread support behind it. I’m not being hysterical about sending soldiers to die – I am only trying to make the distinction between the President’s war-making powers and everything else the government does.
One could argue whether there was popular support when we invaded, but it is beyond dispute that the overwhelming sentiment of the American people is to withdraw our troops over the short or intermediate term future. It is equally clear that only a very small minority supports sending more troops to Iraq. If Bush makes the willful decision to escalate in clear opposition to what the population wants, then I would consider that to be an abrogation of his duty.
Get with the program, peter. There’s no such thing as a sunk cost fallacy when it comes to war.
So, again, the question comes: at what point does the President change course, in this case in Iraq regarding the war? When public support drops to 60%, 50%, 40%, 30%? And at what percentage of support does the war – in terms of its objectives – go from being the right thing to do to being the wrong thing to do?
1) of course sunken costs is not a justification for continuing a failed policy
2) “at what point does the President change course, in this case in Iraq regarding the war?” It’s not quantifiable — there is no magic threshold or single number to use as a criterion — but when 84% of Americans oppose escalation, that type of majority certainly qualifies.
To borrow a quote from an earlier era: when you’re stuck in Big Muddy and the big fool says to push on, what do you do?
Ok, I get your point. The rightness of this war is wholly dependent on the whims of the American people.
Describing it as the “whims” of the American people makes it sounds like it is no more consequential than whether Americans prefer Ruben Studard or Clay Aiken. This is something which most Americans feel passionately about, and which has caused us to lose an enormous amount of blood and treasure. For a President to ignore popular opposition to the war and instead choose the opposite path of escalation is unforgivable.
I agree whole-heartedly that there is a major difference between a war and a highway bill. The difference being that the geopolitical implications of the latter are relatively minor easy to predict.
The best evidence of this is the fact that 66-75% of the American people supported going into Iraq in 2003. Unfortunately, most Americans do not know enough about international affairs to know and understand all of the potential implications of pulling out of Iraq. Blame this on whomever you want — the politicians for not being forthcoming or articulate enough, the media for presenting news that is mostly hype and little substance, or the people themselves just for not paying enough attention. But most people just hear the monthly body counts (and they haven’t been around long enough or bothered to look up statistics from the 60′s and 70′s to see that these figures are about the same as the weekly body counts out of Vietnam) and decide that the war is bad and must be ended. But they can’t see beyond the ends of their noses.
I’d also take issue with the assertion (one often made) that when X-percent of people are alleged to support something, the percentage of those who actively oppose it automatically equals 1-X. I’ve seen the polls that indicate 16% of Americans support escalation, but that doesn’t mean that the balance are actively opposed to the idea.
A better idea would be to take a poll of Middle East scholars, foreign policy experts, etc. (not just a select group of Washington’s ruling class some of whom have little or no experience in foreign policy matters), and see what they think about escalation versus withdrawal.
It is perfectly appropriate to refer to the results of opinion polls as “whims”. See how they change over time and I think it is clear they are in response to a cursory or superficial understanding of the facts. Passion is, in this case, an irrelevant emotion. Most people are not like you in that they do not (cannot?) invest in a deep understanding of the issue.
The larger argument is this: our system is purposely set up so that the affect of public opinion and emotion on the course of our nation is minimized, if not eliminated.