Don't Expect Much from "A New Way Forward"

[Doug]

On Bush's anticipated new strategy for "winning" in Iraq:


Remember that "Plan for Victory" in November '05?....Oh. You don't?
by Dick Polman


...the White House press corps has been peppering spokesman Tony Snow about the delay, and Snow has assured everybody that the Decider is just being deliberative: “This is not not knowing what he wants to do; this is out of an absolute determination to do this right, making sure that he is absolutely convinced that the pieces have been put together, he's gotten the best advice, he's gotten the best facts, and that he now has the policy that he thinks will be the best to move forward.”

What puzzles me, however, is why anyone at this point would assume that anything Bush says is going to (a) break new strategic ground, or (b) quell the sectarian chaos, or (c) lodge in the American memory. On the contrary, we seem to have forgotten that he has delivered dozens of speeches on Iraq over the past few years, most of them instantly forgotten, with nary a phrase that can be invoked years from now as testaments to either his eloquence or prescience.

So as we all brace for the next one, the post-holiday address that may well unveil “the surge,” perhaps it is best to dampen expectations by revisiting one of his earlier, much-awaited rhetorical forays, and taking note of its remarkably short shelf life, its yawning chasm between assertion and fact.

It was just over a year ago, on Nov. 30, 2005, when Bush outlined what he called his “strategy for victory” (not to be confused with the January 2007 strategy for victory), during a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy. He said, for instance, “we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq….On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy.” He said that “Iraqi forces have made real progress,” and that “they’re helping to turn the tide of this struggle in freedom’s favor.”

That was good for one news cycle. The problem is, those words are worthless today; not even his own military leaders bother to endorse any talk about turning the tide. As Marine Lt. Gen. John Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday, during a briefing on the Pentagon’s latest quarterly report on Iraq, “The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace. We have to get ahead of that violent cycle, break that continuous chain of sectarian violence.”

Flash back again to that speech one year ago. At another point, Bush lauded the training of Iraqi police officers: “Iraq has now six basic police academies, and one in Jordan, that together produce over 3500 new police officers every ten weeks…As the training has improved, so has the quality of the recruits being trained. Even though the terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and army recruits, there is no shortage of Iraqis who are willing to risk their lives to secure the future of a free Iraq.”

But again, today’s factual reality has rendered those words inoperative. The new Pentagon report frankly points out that many of those ballyhooed police officers are helping the sectarian killers roam at will: “Shia death squads leveraged support from some elements of the Iraqi Police Services and the National Police, who facilitated freedom of movement and provided advance warning of (security) operations. This is a major reason for the increased levels of murders and executions.”

Here, too, is Bush one year ago: “Iraqi (military) units are growing more independent and more capable; they are defending their new democracy with courage and determination….their confidence is growing…”

But yesterday, Sattler said that even though the number of trained Iraqi forces was expected this month to reach 325,000, the number of available troops – after factoring in all the Iraqis who are “on leave” or who have quit – is actually only 196,000....

Read the rest here.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

W has been cribbing Ronald Reagan movies from the '50s. The reason they seem to have no connection with reality is because they have no connection with reality.

[Dardedar]

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

And Escalation is what we need to keep calling it. There's no "surge" about it - it's throwing another 20-40,000 American kids (if W can find them) into a meat grinder. It's an escalation. The Dems who sort of seem to be agreeing to it all have tagged it to being a "temporary" measure that leads to troop withdrawals in the next 6 months. That's playing politics with a vengence, since W can't "surge" them into Iraq within 6 months, much less "surge" them in and then withdraw the lot in that time. Since most Americans apparently are with W on not caring about the Iraqi casualties, I hesitate to bring up that escalation of troops will do nothing except cause more of them.

[Hogeye]

surge - escalation
training Iraqi police - Iraqization (analogous to Vietnamization for those who remember), death squad training

The Dems who sort of seem to be agreeing to it all have tagged it to being a "temporary" measure that leads to troop withdrawals in the next 6 months. That's playing politics with a vengence...

It looks like you've come around to my point of view - that the Dem faction of the War Party will not change the status quo, but will play politics (read Bush-bashing) for the next two years. The papers say that the Dem congress will vote to approve most/all of Bush's additional funding for the brutal occupation. What will it take for you to denounce the warmonger Dem faction, Barbara?

Meanwhile, has anyone but me noticed that the US funded the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia and has installed its UN/US puppet regime? Bush announced yesterday that the US will ante up with 1000 to 2000 troops in Somalia. Predictions are that it will become another semi-permanent guerrilla warfare mess, with Eritrea and others joining the fun. Your empire at work. Cf: Blundering Into Somalia Yet Again

[Dardedar]

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye - I said the Dems who SEEM to be agreeing. Note the "seem to" and continue reading. Since they make an increase conditional on something that is impossible (temporary increase to permit bringing the troops home within 6 months), they are "making nice" and being "bipartisan" without actually agreeing to what W wants. The "surge" proposal is W's ploy to keep the status quo all right, since the discussion has now been moved from "no troops in Iraq" to "no MORE troops in Iraq". The Dems are stuck with a psychotic but politically astute commander in chief. We will see if they can manage to work around him to get our kids out of there - may take enough investigations for the Rs to ask for impeachment (at which point, FULL SPEED AHEAD on impeachment).