Go to consortiumblog.com to post comments

Order Now

Archives

Bush End Game
George W. Bush's presidency since 2007

Bush - Second Term
George W. Bush's presidency from 2005-06

Bush - First Term
George W. Bush's presidency, 2000-04

Who Is Bob Gates?
The secret world of Defense Secretary Gates

2004 Campaign
Bush Bests Kerry

Behind Colin Powell's Legend
Gauging Powell's reputation.

The 2000 Campaign
Recounting the controversial campaign.

Media Crisis
Is the national media a danger to democracy?

The Clinton Scandals
Behind President Clinton's impeachment.

Nazi Echo
Pinochet & Other Characters.

The Dark Side of Rev. Moon
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics.

Contra Crack
Contra drug stories uncovered

Lost History
America's tainted historical record

The October Surprise "X-Files"
The 1980 election scandal exposed.

International
From free trade to the Kosovo crisis.

Other Investigative Stories

Editorials

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are determined to secure another $100 billion blank check for the Iraq War despite a growing consensus among intelligence and military analysts that the war strategy is in chaos and on course to gravely damage U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Having solidified support among congressional Republicans and still backed by a powerful right-wing news media, Bush and Cheney appear to have concluded that they can force congressional Democrats to back down over legislative language seeking a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

If the President does succeed in this test of wills and wrests the war funding from Congress without strings attached, Bush’s supporters will tout his success as a political rebound. Republican strategists also hope the expected Democratic humiliation will drive a wedge between the national Democrats and the party’s staunchly anti-war base.

Already, prominent Democrats, such as Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Barack Obama of Illinois, have drawn criticism from the base for showing a readiness to run up a white flag rather than face a continued barrage of accusations about undercutting the troops. Those signals have reinforced White House confidence than Bush can prevail.

Over the past week, Bush and Cheney have ratcheted up the rhetoric with the President declaring on April 16 that the Democrats were pushing legislation that “would undercut our troops” and accusing the Democrats of playing politics at a moment of crisis.

“America is not going to be safe until the terrorist threat has been defeated,” Bush said. “If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won’t leave us alone – they will follow us to the United States of America. … We should not legislate defeat in this vital war.”

On April 13, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, Vice President Cheney took an even tougher line calling the Democratic-backed war funding bill “irresponsible” and dressing down the Democratic congressional leadership in especially harsh terms.

“Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of the hard left in the early ‘70s, America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret,” Cheney said. “Not this time, not on our watch. … We will press on in this mission, and we will turn events towards victory.”

Political Victory

But military and intelligence analysts do not expect that a Republican political victory over Democrats in Washington will lead to a battlefield victory in Iraq.

In an Op-Ed article in The Washington Post, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan explained that he rejected a White House overture to serve as a special coordinator for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – the so-called “war czar” – because he found the administration confused about what strategy should be pursued.

“There is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region,” Sheehan wrote. “Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources. …

“We cannot ‘shorthand’ this issue with concepts such as the ‘democratization of the region’ or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to ‘win,’ even as ‘victory’ is not defined or is frequently redefined. …

“I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan – and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. … These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff.” [Washington Post, April 16, 2007]

Sheehan’s account of policy chaos at senior levels of the administration fits with the view of many analysts that Bush and Cheney have put political goals – splitting the Democrats and retaining White House swagger on the war – ahead of a sensible strategy for salvaging the best possible outcome in Iraq.

A revamped strategy that involved redeploying U.S. troops either away from Iraqi cities or outside Iraq altogether would require recognition that Bush had botched his ballyhooed role as “war president” and Cheney had bungled his vaunted work as “crisis manager.”

Bush and Cheney would have to face up to how their grand schemes for remaking the Middle East and their alarmist rhetoric about al-Qaeda creating a global empire from Spain to Indonesia no more match up with reality than did their earlier assertions about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program and his supposed stockpiles of WMD.

Instead, Bush and Cheney continue to justify the Iraq War by citing provocative public comments from Osama bin Laden about how he would relish an American defeat in Iraq. But Bush and Cheney keep ignoring intercepted communiqués from al-Qaeda leaders that indicate they actually want the United States to remain bogged down in Iraq.

For instance, a letter attributed to al-Qaeda leader Zayman al-Zawahiri worried that a rapid U.S. military withdrawal could precipitate a collapse of al-Qaeda’s position in Iraq, fretting that “the mujahaddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.”

Another intercepted letter, written by a senior al-Qaeda operative known as “Atiyah,” cited the need for more time so the terrorist network could sink down roots in Iraq. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote.

Yet, the political battle in Washington is taking place in a kind of parallel universe from the military conflict in Iraq. So, Bush may yet achieve his triumph of the will over the Democrats but that likely will do nothing to alter the unfolding disaster in Iraq.

[For more on how Bush and al-Qaeda’s goals mesh, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Bush-bin Laden Symbiosis.”]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

Back to Home Page