I may not like it, but I’m afraid that I have to agree with David Ignatius when he says that:
Now it gets painful for George W. Bush. Iraq is wrapped around his presidency as tightly as Vietnam was around Lyndon Johnson’s. Bush keeps telling the country he has a plan for victory, but the polls suggest the public doesn’t believe it.
I’ve supported the war from the beginning and still do, but even I have started to tune Bush out:
The polls suggest that Bush is losing the ability to communicate effectively about the issue that matters most to him. He has a better story on Iraq than many people seem to appreciate: Iraqi politicians are in fact coming together toward a government of national unity; Iraqi troops are improving their performance; substantial reductions in the number of U.S. troops are likely this year. But to many Americans, judging by the polls, Bush’s assertions sound like a broken record. His optimism comes across as happy talk.
I recall LBJ’s credibility gap (“light at the end of the tunnel,” repeated over and over again) only too well and agree with Ignatius when he says that it’s a “dangerous situation”:
If Bush loses his ability to convince the country that his war aims make sense, America may be forced into a hasty withdrawal that will have devastating repercussions. To avoid this outcome and maintain its strategy of a measured handoff to Iraqi forces, the administration must bridge what in Johnson’s day was known as the “credibility gap.” Bush could shake up his team and add new voices that can speak more convincingly to the public. Or he could reach out to moderate Democrats who support a bipartisan foreign policy, if there are any who haven’t been chased off by Karl Rove. Or he could give a larger communications role to the uniformed military. The generals won’t like being political frontmen, but they may prefer it to a collapse of support for the war.
Who’s to blame? More than anyone else, Donald Rumsfeld, for insisting on a war plan that put too few feet on the ground. The case against him is presented in devastating, non-ideological, non-partisan terms in Cobra II. Read it.
Is George Bush Sliding Into LBJ Territory On The Iraq War
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius concludes that George Bush may now be moving into the phase that stymied another president—Lyndon Baines John…
I am sympathetic to the President. Way back in 2001 he took the understandable view that the majority of people in the “Caliphate” were not unlike the majority of people here in the U.S. who elected him. All they needed was enough room in the political sphere to make a choice. Now we are all getting tired of waiting for the mass of rejoicing freedom loving Iraqis to express their love and live by our rules.
Democracy involves more than the ability to “vote”. Western style democracy also includes freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, etc. Things that are enabled by institutions that underly the freedom to vote. Things that are still abuilding in Iraq with uncertain results.
If I were President Bush, I would also be impatient to see results and insist on letting events run their course. All is not lost, yet. But we are a long way from “winning”.
On the plus side, did you know that Iraq has a stock exchange ?
What does that mean? At a minimum, property rights. What an un-Islmaic concept. We admire Dubai for it’s growth as an economic powerhouse and ally. But they are the earlier generation of Arab economic freedom and rely on deception to fund their investment practices and avoid Islamic Sharia reproach. In Iraq we see the true beginnings of secular, democratic, capitalist expression. It MUST SUCCEED if the Islamic world is to be transformed into a peaceful participant in the 21st century.
I, like the President, am growing impatient.
What David Ignatius is saying needs to be taken seriously – and he is not one of the predictably strident Bush-haters and presumptives, he’s been far more even-handed and measured than most with his reportage on Iraq and the President in general. Too though, in quoting David Halberstam, other issues are brought to mind; still, what Ignatius has to say needs to be taken in, not dismissed or given short shrift.
The difference is this. LBJ wanted desperately to run for President again. So when he gave up, it was a big deal. Bush isn’t running, and doesn’t care what he polls say.
Marc,
I’ve never seen any logical exposition of what “more feet on the ground”, early or now, would have accomplished, other than have played into the “occupation” scenario.
Also, the only complaint I have about the Bush GWOT is the one expressed by J.R. Dunn in his great American Thinker series: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5351
“In time, George W. Bush’s greatest error in his response to the terror threat will not be seen as the Iraq intervention; or the UAE docks deal, but his failure to adequately rally the American people. This began with his speech of September 20, 2001, in which he outlined the plans for action only to end with,
“The rest of you – go on and live your lives….â€
He has continued in the same vein ever since. It is impossible to picture FDR or Reagan making such an error. The reasons for this (I suspect Bush’s advisors—the belief that the citizenry is a rabble that must be guided is a cherished notion among too many conservatives, both Paleo- and Neo-) are beside the point. The question is whether it is too late to alter the consequences, particularly as involves the conduct of American domestic defense.
Mike Daley
Mike,
First, let me say that I totally agree with you that Bush’s biggest mistake was to say “The rest of you – go on and live your lives….†Those words were his original sin. I can understand the need to reassure us in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but there had to be a better choice of words. Convincing people that we’re at war and telling them to behave as if we’re not at war are mutually exclusive. I’m afraid that the only way this will change (various polls show only 5-10% of Americans rank terrorism as the biggest problem we face) is for another major terrorist attack on our soil to take place.
Second (re: more feet on the ground), here’s the gist of what Cobra II has to say:
while there were obviously enough troops to get to Baghdad blitzkreig-style, there were not enough to take out insurgent groups or search for WMD along the way, and there were not enough to maintain order after arrival in Baghdad. Cobra II isn’t a polemic, and that’s what makes it believable. I urge you to read the book; if you do, please let me know what you think.
Patience, patience, my friends
More boots on the ground would not have been better: more targets, less incentives for the Iraqis to take over, etc.
Plus, I don’t believe getting rid of Rumsfeld would help either: intended as closing “the credibility gap”, it would be interpreted by bush’s adversaries as weakness, admitting being wrong all along, thus only widening the same gap
...oh, ye of little faith..because George W. hasn’t waved a magic wand over the Middle East and solved all humanity’s problems, some think it’s all over but the fat lady singing.
Would we rather have Middle Easterners here in America blowing up buses and Starbuck’s and football stadiums> Have we such short memories of September 11th, of 3000-odd innocents dying in the crumpled ruins of the two World Trade Centers? George W. has warned us not to waiver, that this human contest would not be solved overnight. You let the propagandists rage on, spreading their lies and half-truths, criticisms and bias, and you believe their propaganda. Would you prefer to fight terrorism on your front lawn, in your bedrooms? Have your wives wearing burcas, your children learning how to be martyrs for the mullas? If this prospect alarms you, then start backing our president, and fighting against the Liberal claptrap that is spread through the media and in Washington. Show some backbone.
musnkatz…