Why the killings to follow will all be blamed on Bush
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 1:58PM I talked--or taped--an interview with Hewitt for eight minutes tonight while driving to the airport (and have no idea if the spot runs tonight or not, but suspect it might), and assuming I'm not edited down to bites, I feel I got my point across.
Hugh wants to pre-emptively tag the Dems for future Sunni-v-Shia killings in the inevitable drawdown and pullback to follow. He wants a number to pin on them now in advance of Petraeus' report. The stabbed-in-the-back storyline is being pro-actively weaved.
But here's why that won't work:
Bush unnecessarily alienated the allies we needed to win the postwar early on by fielding enough troops.
Bush let the Sunni-Shia civil war unfold by waiting too long to surge the necessary numbers.
Bush THEN accelerates a fight with Iran on WMD, despite his intell community's judgment that Iran is 3-5 years away from fielding a bomb.
By doing that, and prepping the American public for military strikes with Iran, Bush not only loses popular support at home (sheer fear over a premature escalation and spreading of the war) but encourages (!!!!) Tehran to push as hard as possible in its proxy war in Iraq, so as to keep us diverted and bleed our troops. THAT Bush decision kills ours troops unnecessarily.
THAT Bush decision also encourages (!!!) Riyadh to counter in Iraq with its own effort. That effort also unnecessarily leads to American troop deaths.
Finally, Bush refuses any serious diplomatic surge to accompany the troop surge, and that means he's led America into a strategic cul-de-sac: we either preside over slo-mo ethnic cleansing, losing troops unnecessarily along the way, or we watch it go faster from the sidelines. Either way, our credibility in the region plummets. If we lose enough Americans in this idiotic pathway of Bush's stubborn creation, he'll singlehandedly kill American popular support for a long-term presence in the region. Those deaths that follow will also sit on Bush's head.
Why Bush picked this premature fight with Iran RIGHT when Tehran could harm us most in Iraq, putting the maximum number of U.S. troops at risk (and killing plenty in this process unnecessarily) is simply beyond me. It is THE strategic mistake of the entire Bush administration, and it's why all the deaths to date and to follow will sit squarely on Bush's shoulders. These were all HIS choices, despite a chorus of advice to the contrary--all along the way.
I would accept no such number of either Iraqi or American deaths. I never would have ramped up the fight prematurely with Tehran. I would have done it wit North Korea, but not Iran. I would have made the deals necessary to make Iraq work. I would not abandon one war without finishing it to prematurely ramp up another one with Iran.
If you want to counter by saying the meddling by Iran and Saudi Arabia (i.e., support to co-religionists) matters little, then fine. But it's hard to deny that their roles--along with Iran proxy Syria--could have been large in the stabilization of Iraq, something we've not really forced and/or negotiated from them. Absent attaining a powerful quorum of outside powers to force Iraq's stabilization in a huge show of force, we were ALWAYS slated to accommodate both Riyadh and Tehran on Iraq, and if you say balancing those two is that hard, then I think you overestimate the Saudis and underestimate the Iranians--and clearly we collectively misunderestimated Bush by re-electing him in 2004, when signs of his administration's lack of strategic imagination were already appearing.
Ed. Hugh spoke to Tom about Bosnia done backwards is still a model, just with more real-time anguish but for some reason linked the wrong post in his own post
Reader Comments (18)
Fast forward a bit.
Iraq nation building occupation ends with American troop withdrawal:
Faced with an ineffective Iraqi government, continuing hatred between Sunnis and Shiites with no end in sight, fatigue and deteriorating morale among the over used and abused American troops who were placed in between waring infidel hating Muslims, resistance to continue the war on the part of the American people and a rebellion in Congress with a threat to cut off funding, a reluctant President George W. Bush finallyagreed to bring American forces home.
The failure of the Iraqi war supporters to admit that President Bush's Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been ill advised and a profound failure would have a huge impact on their psyches and its impact would be manifest in their desire to involve the American nation and it's military in yet another war and nation building occupation that they felt could be won this time thus bringing them vindication.
Many Neocon internet web sites and Neocon radio talk shows would support the false idea that President Bush's Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been going very well and with just a little more time and just a little more surging and just a little more stay the course the Iraqi nation building occupation would have resulted in the building of a successful democratic, rule of law Iraqi nation that would be an ally in the war against terror and serve as a shining example for the rest of the Middle East.
They believed that President Bush's Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been visionary and brilliant and would have soon succeeded, except for being betrayed at home, the infamous 'Stab in the Back' theory. (Similar to the myth and betrayal theory [Dolchstosslegende] popular in Germany in the period after World War I which attributed Germany's defeat to a number of domestic betrayals instead of failed geostrategy.)
This 'Stab in the Back' theory would become hugely popular among many Neocon internet web sites and Neocon radio talk show hosts who found it impossible to accept the fact that President Bush's Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been an unmitigated disaster.
During the actual Iraqi nation building occupation fiasco, manyNeocons became obsessed with this idea, especially laying blame on what they called "traitors", "White flag wavers", "defeatist cut and runners" and "surrender monkeys" in America for undermining the Iraqi nation building occupation effort. To the Neocons, and so many of their followers, the American congress men and women and their fellow Americans, the clear majority of whom did not support President Bush's Iraqi nation building occupation policies, would become known as the 'Defeatist Criminals.'
I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. Did Bush field too many troops? Not enough troops? I'm feeling like Goldilocks here. The allies wanted more? Less? None? Infinity?
Tom's dream scenario was 100k peace keepers each from Russia, China, and India, but we certainly didn't have the moxie to build that kind of alliance. reasons: 1. they're local. 2. in the case of India and China, they use a lot more of that oil than we do.
Anyway, forgive me if this question is horribly naive. Any insights would be much appreciated :)
The Big Bang is still in process. Tehran and Damascus have very big changes coming. Iraq is gelling much faster and better than its enemies can tolerate, including domestic American ones.
The insurgents would have chewed up and spat out peace keepers from Russia, China or India, unless they resorted to the German's counterinsurgency tactics (kill 100 random locals for every one of theirs killed, repeat as needed).
They don't have the equipment, the technology, the logistics even though they're local. Their personnel don't have the interest in winning hearts and minds. Jesus, they're conscripts!
And what - I'm afraid to ask - were we supposed to offer India, China and Russia for their aid, in addition to parts of the oil contracts?
If anyone hasn't heard it yet, I strongly recommend the 9 Part Series Tom did with Hugh going chapter by chapter for the Pentagon's New Map. I still think it's the best way to experience the book. I heard the podcasts several months before I read the book, then I relistened to them after reading each chapter. It was a nice little way to re-cap what I had just read. To my knowledge, Hugh has NEVER given an author that much time to examine a book. I've been emailing him trying to get him to do another chapter-by-chapter of Blueprint for Action... maybe some of you guys can do the same? Perhaps posting comments on Hugh's blog about this recent appearance will remind Hugh how Tom can really get some discussion going...
You have a point on logistics, but I'm sure the US would be more than happy to assist. Other than that, post conflict isn't a high-tech mission. To quote Tom, what we need is boots on the ground and both India and China have plenty of them.
And what - I'm afraid to ask - were we supposed to offer India, China and Russia for their aid, in addition to parts of the oil contracts?
Oil contracts may have been enough for Russia considering we told them they were excluded because they didn't support the initial invasion. Russia would also have been interested in re-arming the Iraqi military after we destroyed it.
India and China on the other hand, would have been far easier. This is THEIR oil we're fighting for. 1.3 billion in China and counting. They want stability more than anything else and they're doing it on America's dime. India did offer some troops after we asked, but declined after they lost confidence in our post-war planning.
their logistics are a problem that we could have helped with. other than that, we only needed their boots on the ground. we've been too high-tech as it is.
part of what we offer is for them to punch above their weight. and their peacekeepers get better pay than if they stay home. and, to some degree, they want and need to take security responsibility in their own neighborhood.
I don't think that's something America wants to be a part of. I'm not sure Russia would want to be a part of it, either. They have their own insurgency to deal with - they don't want to raise a whole new population to blow up their elementary schools, theaters, airplanes etc.
China's going where the fighting aint - north Africa - for it's strategic reserves. The Chinese don't have the transport to get there (so we'd supply it) or the logistics to support the people (so we'd supply it) or the vehicles to use once they're there (so we'd supply them) or the body armor (ditto) the night vision goggles (yep) the radios (check) etc. The only thing we wouldn't be supplying was their will to slaughter as many people as it took to passify the area. They woudn't have any problem killing a few million Iraqis to prevent the deaths of 250,000, that's a calculus they be fine with. They might spend a lot of time asking if that's really what we wanted them to do.
That brings us to India. Yes, they need the oil. They've killed an awful lot of Muslims in their time, but it doesn't seem to be their first option anymore. But they've got an ongoing Muslim insurgency just worse than the Russians. Are they going to pull their troops off the border with Pakistan, so they can go kill Muslims in Iraq?
If we can't get the Spanish to keep their troops there after a horrific train bombing, why do we thing the Indians would keep their troops there after weeks of horrific train bombings?
And, of course, we'd have to supply them with EVERYTHING from APC's to vests.
It seems to me that blaming Bush for not bringing in these people as allies on the ground is like blaming him for not nominating Joe Lieberman as the next AG. Sure, it would be great for US - but not so great for them. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't do it.
Whenever possible, I see us employing the Gap to fight the Gap -- as was done in days past.
Kind of reminds me of the old saying that you can always hire half the poor to fight or kill the other half.
It does seem to me that you feel the need to defend them though.
Why would big Bush donors give him the money if that were not the case? American oil and corporate interests have no concern for American casualties or fatigue of the Military because their children are not in our military.
The next valid goal these folks have is mind is capture conrol of iranian oil fields and they won't jepoardize absolute control of either the Iraqi, Irannian or Caspeian oil fields by sharing oil now. It, control of all these oil fields, is THE bargining chip for all future dealings with the WORLD. It is a goal they clearly feel is in the National Interest and thus they absolutely have no interest in sharing just now.
He who controls the oil, controls the globe is the 'truth' these American oil interests are betting on. Bring on the draft or whatever is required during the next 50 years and it is a fair price to pay for this goal in their opinion.
The obvious catch is how will the WORLD full of creditors treat our indebtedness when the tactics become clear and how will Big Oil interests answer the economic challenge? Declare bankruptcy and let them suck for the money?
I'd like to know who really is governing this country? It sure as hell isn't the Democratic Congess.