The New Way Forward
Psychoanalysis from a distance is about as accurate as diagnosing brain function after watching a videotape of the patient: not very. That doesn't stop people from doing so, especially when it comes to this president and what he is likely to do when it comes to the Iraq Mess. The latest exercise comes in an article in today's NY Times.
The debate that will engulf Washington and much of the country this week centers on a question that lurks at the intersection of war strategy and the personality of the commander in chief: after three and a half years, is President Bush ready to abandon his declaration that American forces cannot begin to leave Iraq until the Iraqis demonstrate that they are capable of defending themselves? [Emphasis added]
The psychoanalytic language is a handy way for the journalist to organize his story, a hook, if you will, upon which to hang the facts and the analysis in a nice tidy way. As such, it is not particularly disturbing, as long as the reader is aware that it is nothing more than a metaphor.
What is disturbing, however, is that apparently the Iraq Study Group was also concerned with the President's psyche when drafting its report. The article makes it clear that the members of the commission were leaking their considerations and proposals to the administration as much (or more) as they were leaking to the press, and Administration responses were considered in the conclusions reached in the report. I had concluded last Thursday in a post that the Iraq Study Group was couching its conclusions in language that wouldn't upset the President. I didn't realize that so much more was going on.
If this article is correct, then instead of looking for "The New Way Forward" touted by National Security Advisor Steven Hadley in his various appearances yesterday on talking-head shows, the Iraq Study Group was concerned only with what Mr. Bush would do, rather than what he should do. And apparently the commissioners aren't really certain that they succeeded in even that:
Commission members say they concluded that Mr. Bush’s strategy so far has created an expectation that the United States will always be there to hold Iraq together. Breaking that culture of dependency, they concluded, is the key to making the long-discussed “Iraqification” of the country’s security a reality. But they are uncertain whether they can persuade a famously stubborn president to adopt that view.
“Is George Bush ready to hear that?” one commission member asked over the weekend. “I don’t think any of us really know. I don’t know if the president himself knows.” [Emphasis added]
And for that the American taxpayers paid good money?
The debate that will engulf Washington and much of the country this week centers on a question that lurks at the intersection of war strategy and the personality of the commander in chief: after three and a half years, is President Bush ready to abandon his declaration that American forces cannot begin to leave Iraq until the Iraqis demonstrate that they are capable of defending themselves? [Emphasis added]
The psychoanalytic language is a handy way for the journalist to organize his story, a hook, if you will, upon which to hang the facts and the analysis in a nice tidy way. As such, it is not particularly disturbing, as long as the reader is aware that it is nothing more than a metaphor.
What is disturbing, however, is that apparently the Iraq Study Group was also concerned with the President's psyche when drafting its report. The article makes it clear that the members of the commission were leaking their considerations and proposals to the administration as much (or more) as they were leaking to the press, and Administration responses were considered in the conclusions reached in the report. I had concluded last Thursday in a post that the Iraq Study Group was couching its conclusions in language that wouldn't upset the President. I didn't realize that so much more was going on.
If this article is correct, then instead of looking for "The New Way Forward" touted by National Security Advisor Steven Hadley in his various appearances yesterday on talking-head shows, the Iraq Study Group was concerned only with what Mr. Bush would do, rather than what he should do. And apparently the commissioners aren't really certain that they succeeded in even that:
Commission members say they concluded that Mr. Bush’s strategy so far has created an expectation that the United States will always be there to hold Iraq together. Breaking that culture of dependency, they concluded, is the key to making the long-discussed “Iraqification” of the country’s security a reality. But they are uncertain whether they can persuade a famously stubborn president to adopt that view.
“Is George Bush ready to hear that?” one commission member asked over the weekend. “I don’t think any of us really know. I don’t know if the president himself knows.” [Emphasis added]
And for that the American taxpayers paid good money?
Labels: Iraq Study Group, Iraq War
posted by Diane at 3:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home