Allies Steadily Giving Up on Bush

The McCain Doctrine, the 'surge,' the 'augmentation,' the escalation, whatever one wants to call it, cannot mean very much if our allies continue to pull out troops. It's been a long time, for example, since Tony Blair had over 40,000 British troops in Iraq. While Blair has been drawing down, the Spanish have left, the Poles have left, the Italians have left and on it goes.

Steve Soto of The Left Coaster caught this on the news today:

The BBC and NBC are reporting at this hour that Tony Blair will be withdrawing 1500 troops from Basra within weeks, and that he wants 3000 of their 7700 troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, if security warrants it. According to the BBC, Blair told Bush of this revised timeline just this morning.

By the end of the year, the British could have less than 5,000 troops in Iraq compared to the more than 40,000 they once had. That's a drop of 35,000 troops, considerably more than the troops that Bush is including for his 'surge.'

The British aren't the only ones among our alllies in recent weeks who are increasingly unhappy with Bush. The Japanese have been among our strongest allies but even their patience is wearing thin. Dick Cheney, of all people, has been sent to patch up the problems. Here's the story from John Brinsley of Bloomberg:

Cheney, 66, arrived in Tokyo late today, less than three weeks after Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso called U.S. policy in Iraq ``naive.'' Last month, Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma said President George W. Bush made a ``mistake'' in starting the war.

The belittling of the U.S. shows that support for the war in its closest ally in Asia is waning after Bush ordered an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq. Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who succeeded Junichiro Koizumi in September, said his cabinet was united in its support for the ``surge.''

``When the defense minister and foreign minister of one of your allies criticize your policies, you cannot reasonably interpret it as being happy with what's going on,'' said Gerald Curtis, a political science professor at Columbia University in New York specializing in U.S.-Japan relations.

The mixed message from the Japanese seems to imply that they would like to see a change in policy by their staunchest ally. It may also be a signal that the Japanese want nothing to do with a war in Iran; they are, after all, heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. Steve Soto also suspects that Tony Blair is sending a similar message to Bush. The British and Japanese are clearly among our strongest allies. If Bush's incompetence is giving them second thoughts, that doesn't leave many people supporting Bush's failed policies. It is well past time for Republicans in Congress to join Democrats in asserting Congress as a co-equal branch and start holding the president accountable while insisting on changes that makes sense.

Bush Responsible for Troop Surge

It just keeps getting worse. Bush is the proof the American people cannot afford to go to sleep and simply vote the party line or buy into ads that says little about who a candidate is or why anyone should believe they're qualified.

The more one reads about the troop surge, the more it comes down to an arbitrary decision by Bush and probably Cheney to just charge ahead and ignore any quality advice. They ignore the Iraq Study Group, they ignore the Democrats, they ignore the generals and, perhaps the most significant of all, they ignore the Iraqis. After all, the Decider-in-Chief and the guy who can't shoot straight know better. And the basis of their decision? Six years of blunders beginning with day one when they ignored warning that al Qaida would be their biggest problem. If I sound harsh, it's because the State of the Union is coming up and George W. Bush still thinks he has a license to do whatever he pleases regardless of the American people.

American Pundit has reviewed State of Denial by Bob Woodward and he offers one of the better summaries of the Bush presidency from Woodward's book:

In each book I read, I try to find a passage that sums it up. There's one such spot in Woodward's latest book where a high-ranking Pentagon official, referring to the Bush administration, says he's "never seen a group of people less able to advance their own interests."

These guys strut and brag and flap their arms and they can't even do what they say they're going to do. And sometimes, they threaten to do the very thing they shouldn't do in the first place such as start a war with Iran! I know, patience. We all have to be patient while Republicans in Congress come around to joining Democrats on putting limits on Bush before he can do more harm.

Here's the story on Bush's 'decision' from Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker of The Washington Post:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a surprise for President Bush when they sat down with their aides in the Four Seasons Hotel in Amman, Jordan. Firing up a PowerPoint presentation, Maliki and his national security adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki said he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority.

The president listened intently to the unexpected proposal at their Nov. 30 meeting, according to accounts from several administration officials. Bush seemed impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea.

(snip)

He never seriously considered beginning to withdraw U.S. forces, as urged by newly elected Democratic congressional leaders and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. And he had grown skeptical of his own military commanders, who were telling him no more troops were needed.

So Bush relied on his own judgment that the best answer was to try once again to snuff out the sectarian violence in Baghdad, even at the risk of putting U.S. soldiers into a crossfire between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. When his generals resisted sending more troops, he seemed irritated. When they finally agreed to go along with the plan, he doubled the number of troops they requested.

It was a signature moment for a president who seems uninfluenced by the electorate on Iraq and headed for a showdown with the new Democratic Congress. Presented with an opportunity to pull back, Bush instead chose to extend and, in some ways, deepen his commitment, gambling that more time and a new plan will finally bring success to the troubled U.S. military mission.

George W. Bush is a flawed man who should never have become the president of the United States. Dick Cheney, an able administrator when someone else is in charge, should never have become vice president and given so much authority to implement his dark vision of the world. I have no idea what's going to happen in the next two years as Bush pursues one or two more foreign policy gambles, but we need to find some better people to send to Washington in 2008; and somewhere along the line, the American people need to confront why Bush and Cheney have combined to give us the worst administration in American history. They didn't do it alone—the sad truth is that they had help.

Troop 'Surge' Misnamed?

Ignoring growing concerns about his lack of credibility, Bush says he's trying to educate Americans about Iraq and what needs to be done. But calling the troops that Bush is sending to Iraq a 'surge' may be a misnomer if the troops are simply to be trickled in over a number of months. Journalist and Middle East expert Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer suggests it will be a while before the accumulated trickle reaches the troop levels that Bush is calling a 'surge':

All the angst in Washington over President Bush's plan for a troop surge in Iraq is obscuring this reality: There is no "surge."

A surge, according to Webster's dictionary, is a "sudden, strong increase." But the president is sending only a trickle of extra U.S. troops to Baghdad this month and next month. The number is not 21,500 as has been widely reported, but 7,000, according to congressional testimony Wednesday by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. (Four thousand more will deploy to Anbar province.)

An additional 10,500 may come in installments over the next several months—if the Iraqi government delivers on its promises, such as ending the sectarian violence. The likelihood of that is about as good as the odds that you or I will win the lottery.

In other words, even the trickle may soon be cut off.

If I thought a surge could stabilize Baghdad at this late date, and we had enough troops for the job, I would support it. But it won't, and we don't. The whole premise of a surge reflects a belated recognition that the United States didn't send enough soldiers to Iraq in the first place. The president finally admitted "mistakes were made."

Yet, Bush seems determined to keep on making similar errors. ...

Bush likes World War Two analogies. So let me point out that if we had trickled in troops on the beaches of Normandy we would have flat out lost that battle. We won because we threw in troops so fast that we overwhelmed the local German troops before their generals could move in enough reinforcements to throw us back into the sea. In essence, Bush's trickle policy is likely to give the 'enemy' (whoever they are these days) plenty of time to make adjustments. It's also likely to give Bush plenty of time to think of new gambles to get himself into yet a deeper hole.

Here's a question: is the current policy a serious but flawed policy, or a political policy designed to fumble Iraq into the hands of the next president, or an ad hoc policy to keep us in Iraq a bit longer so that we can attack Iran? The Decider-in-Chief has decided but apparently without rational debate and without input from the newly elected Congress. And also without much input from the Iraqis. Let's assume for a moment that it's yet another flawed policy and that Bush still has a few things to learn. So, who educates the Educator-in-Chief?

In a Critical Period, Media Must Do Its Job

In retrospect, there's no question the American media didn't do its job in the critical period leading up to Bush's war in Iraq. There were exceptions but the exceptions were drowned out by the drumbeat of war being organized by the White House. There is still an important need for the media to keep checking the facts and claims coming out of the Bush Administration. What we do not need are puff pieces like the one that 60 Minutes did Sunday night on President Bush. CBS should leave puff pieces to that Republican organ, Fox News and instead concentrate on real journalism instead of pictures of the Washington Monument from Bush's helicopter. Bush may be nothing but a big spoiled kid wanting to show off his backyard but that is a significant part of the problem with the Bush presidency. A skeptical eye is needed when examining Bush's new 'policy' of troop surge and the growing noise by his right wing friends who are calling for war in Iran.

The Knight Ridder Washington Bureau was one of the few news organizations before the war in Iraq that interviewed low level administration figures who were uneasy about what Bush and Cheney were claiming back in 2002; it's now the McClatchy Washington Bureau and here's a story by Mark Seibel (h/t to Talking Points Memo):

President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

(snip)

The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.

Whether many of the administration's statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn't been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee.

On Thursday, frustration over the accuracy of administration statements on Iraq boiled over during Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

"Madam Secretary," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."

CBS and 60 Minutes should read the article before Bush gets us into a wider war.

Republicans Balking on Bush's Iraq Plans, But....

Terrell of Alone on a Limb notes that at least 12 Republicans have concerns about Bush's 'new' Iraq plan. Paul Kiel of Talking Points Memo says 7 Republicans oppose the surge and 9 express reservations but haven't made a decision.

U.S. News has more on the uneasiness of many Republicans (ellipses outside paragraphs mine):

... On Capitol Hill, the President's plan was the object of strong attacks yesterday -- from both sides of the aisle. Some reports suggest the President's support among Republicans may be quickly collapsing. The Financial Times reports Bush yesterday "cut an increasingly lonely and embattled figure as opposition Democrats and fellow Republicans greeted his 'new way forward' in Iraq with a barrage of denunciation. ... This show of Republican opposition prompted comparisons with Richard Nixon during the Vietnam era." The Times quotes an unnamed GOP "strategist" saying, "Republican support for the president is draining rapidly ... It is almost unheard of for Republicans to criticise a Republican president at war so soon after he has made an appeal for support.'" The Washington Times says that while "Republican leaders on Capitol Hill staunchly back" Bush's proposal, "support among the party's rank and file may be crumbling."

Reports in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today and New York Times reach similar conclusions this morning. Nonetheless, the White House still holds out some hope that it will be able to ride out the crisis. ...

There are two issues and they are not always stated explicitly. First is the issue of the troop escalation in Iraq. Second is the issue of a possible war with Iran and even possibly Syria. The two issues are difficult to separate since a troop surge without a regional political settlement makes a wider conflict possible.

On the one hand, it's good that a number of Republicans, particularly in the Senate, are coming around to recognizing the recklessness of the Bush Administration; on the other hand there is a record of Republicans not coming through after making public statements that they would oppose some of Bush's more irresponsible moves. Hang on to your seats. We may be in for a ride.

Bush Administration Fiasco Continues

Remember Afghanistan? The place where Osama bin Laden and al Qaida were located? Because of the fiasco in Iraq, Bush never got around to finishing the job in Afghanistan, a war clearly related to the 9/11 terrorists. Steve Clemons notes where some of the troops for the Bush 'surge' are coming from:

Bush Makes Same Mistake Twice: Pulling Troops from Afghanistan to Deploy to Iraq

President Bush is planning to pull troops out of Afghanistan to deploy to Iraq.

From the Baltimore Sun:

As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.

Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

Read the Baltimore Sun article and ask yourself if the president really knows what he's doing.

My grandfather said once that if you're going to do a job, do it right. One time, he amplified on the theme and said you don't do a job halfway and then rush off to do a job somewhere else; you finish the job you started and then you move on. My grandfather was a Republican and he had far more sense than the current Republican in the White House.

We don't need more troops in Iraq at this point, we need a political settlement, a drawdown and a redeployment. The 'troop surge' ignores the need for a more sensible direction in Iraq. There are no good solutions in Iraq but it is becoming increasingly important to repair our foreign policy.

The president has two wars going and neither are going all that well. The problem in Afghanistan is more a matter of neglect. Iraq, however, is a strategic blunder. And Wednesday night, Bush hinted at possible war with Syria and Iran. The president isn't merely incompetent, he is out of control. I don't know what's going to happen but there are growing signs that a number of Republicans in Congress are finally realizing that the guys in the White House need to be reined in.

The Prince Who Couldn't Make Up His Mind

The most important thing that the Iraq Study Group called on President Bush to do was to face reality. That apparently is not going to happen. There will be a public relations nod or two to the failures of the last number of months in Bush's speech tonight and nothing more. It's back to business as usual.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Bush's policies in Iraq was when it became obvious early on that if things don't go according to his latest delusion, Bush would sit on his hands hoping for the best while calling that behavior 'staying the course' (given how much the government and its policies are run by Cheney, we can only assume that Cheney has his own way of responding or not responding such as slinking off to a dark corner to brood over a martini or two or three as he did a year ago when he accidentally shot a friend). Even today, it's not much different. When Bush should have found a way to send an extra hundred thousand troops three or even four years ago, the president will now send an extra twenty thousand temporary troops as he has on several occassions and he will try to sell this as a decisive action.

It has occurred to Robert Scheer that our president has become Hamlet; here's his column in Truthout:

To surge or not to surge, that is the question. As our prince proposes, once again, to take arms against a sea of troubles, he responds not to the disaster that he has visited upon Iraq, but rather embraces a desperate strategy for salvaging what remains of his reign.

To win, perchance to dream. Few Americans, a mere 17 percent, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, think that sacrificing more Americans in patrols on the streets of Baghdad will reverse the slings and arrows of our outrageous Iraqi fortune, but giving a speech about it might provide our hapless Hamlet with some temporary political cover.

"All the world is really watching," proclaimed Bush press secretary Tony Snow, "and it's important to get this right."

...it's important to get this right. Ahhh. And thereby hangs the tale. Hamlet is sometimes seen as the prince who couldn't make up his mind. That describes Bush very well except for one key difference. Hamlet didn't have the image-maker behind the throne who would create the confident and decisive illusion of the prince strutting across an aircraft carrier; the image-maker being Karl Rove, of course.

*Sigh* Getting this right. I opposed the war before it began, but once it began, I hoped it would be a quick war and that the president would get it right. It took less than a month to get the uneasy feeling a fiasco was already unfolding. No weapons of mass destruction. No plan. Uncontrolled looting. Arms caches left untouched. And the unraveling of Bush's many deceptions and delusions, too numerous to list in this post today.

How many chances should a president have? At what cost? For what benefit? Where are the successes that Bush and his supporters can point to that says Bush knows what he's doing? Where is the record that says Bush has been straight with the American people? Should a president been given one more chance knowing he's thinking seriously of starting a war with Iran? A president should have benchmarks for his own performance. Any benchmark one can use for Bush, though, would only show failure. Except in one area: Bush still succeeds in his capacity to deceive.

Growing Need for Diplomacy in Middle East

It appears that Bush is going forward with his phony troop surge. I say phony because we have had troop increases several times in almost four years now. I say phony because the British do not appear to be joining us in a troop surge and their numbers are far below what they once were. I say phony because this is not about Bush having a solution but only two things: more publicity designed to turn public opinion around and a cynical attempt to fumble Iraq into the hands of the next president. A troop surge also buys Bush more time to drag us into another war, this one possibly with Iran.

There are consequences to Bush's incompetence. The failure to engage in negotiations in the Middle East has not only led to a major drift in our foreign policy but we are now faced with the unthinkable from those who aren't any better than our president in clear thinking; Truthout carries the story from The Sunday Times:

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open "tunnels" into the targets. "Mini-nukes" would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished," said one of the sources.

Breaking the nuclear taboo of the last sixty-one years for the sake of a preemptive strike is a bad idea. It does not matter if Israel does it or the United States does it. In either case, it will further damage our foreign policy and our reputation as the leader of the free world.

The Israelis are clearly doing their best to influence our foreign policy. Apparently the Saudis are pretty much doing the same thing. It is proper for the Israelis and Saudis to express their concerns but the Bush Administration has things backwards if we decide to follow their lead instead of leading ourselves. The many blunders of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld require that we repair our foreign policy before we dig a hole so deep we will regret it for decades to come. On all sides, the dead in Iraq have many angry cousins. It will do no good to behave like a colonial power and create more angry cousins in Iraq as well as Iran. It is time for talk.