No Surprises
Paul Richter's analysis piece in today's Los Angeles Times points out what many of us already knew. This president has no intention of doing anything, much less the hard things, to end this disastrous war in Iraq. Instead, he'll leave all the ugly heavy lifting to the poor sod who inherits his job in 2009.
The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.
The plans outlined by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would retain a large force in the country -- perhaps more than 100,000 troops -- when the time comes for Bush to move out of the White House in January 2009.
The plans also would allow Bush to live up to his pledge to the defining mission of his presidency, and perhaps to improve his chances for a decent legacy. He can say he left office pursuing a strategy that was having at least some success in suppressing violence, a claim that some historians may view sympathetically.
"Bush has found his exit strategy," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former government Mideast specialist now at the Brookings Institution. As Petraeus met with lawmakers and unveiled chart upon chart showing declining troop levels, the U.S. commander seemed to have opened a new discussion about how the United States would wind up its commitment to Iraq. Yet viewed more closely, his presentation, and that of U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, were better suited to the defense of an earlier strategy: "stay the course."
Unfortunately for Americans and Iraqis, that exit strategy has nothing to do with the war, merely Mr. Bush's own exit from office with hopes of a more sympathetic view of his legacy some indeterminate time in the future. In the meantime, hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis will die or be maimed.
Even more tragically, this administration is going to do nothing substantive to try to improve conditions in Iraq, apparently because it has no concrete ideas (beyond "staying the course") on how to do so.
But while Petraeus and Crocker made the administration's general goals clear, it left uncertain their thinking on a variety of key issues.
Nothing new was said, for example, on how the administration intends to try to break apart the governmental gridlock in Baghdad, which has obstructed the administration's plan to bring about national reconciliation through agreements by the national government. Does the administration want to try to overhaul the badly balkanized government, or empower the local governments?
Also unanswered was what course the administration will take if it turns out that fewer U.S. forces are unable to maintain the current level of security when the five brigades leave by summer.
Like I said, nothing new to most of us. Still, it was nice to see a major US newspaper point out all of this.
The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.
The plans outlined by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would retain a large force in the country -- perhaps more than 100,000 troops -- when the time comes for Bush to move out of the White House in January 2009.
The plans also would allow Bush to live up to his pledge to the defining mission of his presidency, and perhaps to improve his chances for a decent legacy. He can say he left office pursuing a strategy that was having at least some success in suppressing violence, a claim that some historians may view sympathetically.
"Bush has found his exit strategy," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former government Mideast specialist now at the Brookings Institution. As Petraeus met with lawmakers and unveiled chart upon chart showing declining troop levels, the U.S. commander seemed to have opened a new discussion about how the United States would wind up its commitment to Iraq. Yet viewed more closely, his presentation, and that of U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, were better suited to the defense of an earlier strategy: "stay the course."
Unfortunately for Americans and Iraqis, that exit strategy has nothing to do with the war, merely Mr. Bush's own exit from office with hopes of a more sympathetic view of his legacy some indeterminate time in the future. In the meantime, hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis will die or be maimed.
Even more tragically, this administration is going to do nothing substantive to try to improve conditions in Iraq, apparently because it has no concrete ideas (beyond "staying the course") on how to do so.
But while Petraeus and Crocker made the administration's general goals clear, it left uncertain their thinking on a variety of key issues.
Nothing new was said, for example, on how the administration intends to try to break apart the governmental gridlock in Baghdad, which has obstructed the administration's plan to bring about national reconciliation through agreements by the national government. Does the administration want to try to overhaul the badly balkanized government, or empower the local governments?
Also unanswered was what course the administration will take if it turns out that fewer U.S. forces are unable to maintain the current level of security when the five brigades leave by summer.
Like I said, nothing new to most of us. Still, it was nice to see a major US newspaper point out all of this.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Diane at 3:40 AM
1 Comments:
I'm afraid it could get even worse. The rethugs know they will lose the presidency in '08, and the Dems will increase their majority in both houses of Congress. We know they have plans on the table to attack Iran. That alone may not be enough to swing the election back to the neocons, but if they do attack, they'll screw up the Middle East, the US military, and the US economy to such a greater degree that 4 years of Dem leadership won't be enough to undo the damage. Then in '12, they blame the whole mess on the Dems, and re-take the government as by then, their previous malfesance will be down the memory hole.
Post a Comment
<< Home