The Big Fool Says To Push On

Voters: 'Mr. President, do you understand the message that we sent to you last Tuesday?'

President Bush: 'No, apparently not.'

The Guardian (U.K.): US plans last big push in Iraq

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group....

Though this is all speculatory for now, one has to wonder how much of this is based on the President's sincere beliefs that this is the right thing to do, and how much is based on him doubling down and trying to do the opposite of what Democrats want in hopes that he can prove them wrong? Judging by how politically-calculated every decision he's made on this war has been, I'm sure it's more the latter. How many people will have to die before the President is willing to concede we are in a no-win situation and should cut our losses in the least harmful way possible? Many, many more I am afraid.

Atrios brings up a good point that if the President actually does go through with this, it pretty much takes the wind out of McCain's 2008 sails. McCain's big selling point is that he will fix the Iraq mess by sending in 20,000 troops for one last big push to win it... exactly what the President is planning now. So now that'd be off the table for McCain. And if Bush does this gamble and loses, well then McCain will be seen as the guy who advocated the failed escalation that solidified our loss in Iraq. Where either of them plans to get these 20,000 troops from is also a good question. Time for recruiters to lower their standards some more?

Ohh, that four-point plan mentioned above? Here is the summary, via The Guardian-

· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq

· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others

· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces

This is all sounds nice (if a little too familiar), but where were these big ideas three years ago when they might have actually helped? Ohh that's right, the White House was too busy being arrogant and telling anyone who tried to expose them to reality a traitor and terrorist sympathizer. Heck, they were still doing that up until the election last week.

Following the voters' not-so-subtle rejection of the President and his war, he and his crew are now coming out and saying "C'mon, please give us one more chance. We promise to get it right this time, we swear...". But I am far too cynical at this point to let the drunks drive us home, no matter how sobered up they insist they are. We've just been through this too many times (and the fact that the article credits Henry Kissinger for putting Bush on this path says it all).

Since it became clear in the summer of 2003 that 'mission accomplished' actually wasn't, we've been through a number of milestones that we were told were going to 'turn the corner' and secure victory. Catching Saddam was going to make everything better, then handing over sovereignty was going to make everything better, securing Fallujah was going to make everything better, setting up a unity government was going to make everything better, holding the purple-finger elections was going to make everything better, turning Bagdad into a garrison town was going to make everything better, etc etc... but they didn't. But every next time, well that we are told will be different.

Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Service Committee yesterday that Iraq has "four to six months" left before it all falls apart. This time they mean it. Salon's Tim Grieve reminds us that this is some serious deja-vu:

As somebody said the other day, the "next six months" are always critical in Iraq. Tony Blair told reporters back in January 2004 that Iraq was about to enter "a very critical six months." Chuck Hagel said "the next six months will be very critical" in August 2005, and Joseph Biden said "the next six months are going to tell the story" in December 2005. U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said in July that "the next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war." Gen. George Casey said in early October that "the next six months will determine the future of Iraq." And a certain New York Times columnist has declared the importance of the "next six months" so many times that 180 days is now known in some circles as "a Friedman."

Maybe the next six months in Iraq really will be the critical ones. Maybe they won't be. But here's a modest proposal either way. Instead of talking about the future of Iraq in terms of months -- hey, we'd all like a little more time! -- let's quantify it a different way. At the current rate of things, six additional months in Iraq means that 416 more U.S. soldiers will die. Are we willing to bet their lives on the odds that the six monthers are finally right this time?

Or, as someone said in 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

For those of us who have been screaming for years about what a disaster this war is to no avail, until just this past year when public opinion fortunately shifted against this madness, all of this stuff coming out of Washington (the calls for last-push escalation, the crazy idea that any idea that comes out of James Baker's blue-ribbon commission of old Bush family cronies will be independent, etc) is depressing to behold. I remain hopeful that a Democratic majority in the House and Senate will be able to have a major impact on the war issue in a way the rubberstamp GOP never would have, but it's clear that (as expected) the President's talk of 'bipartisanship' doesn't apply to big issues like the war. The Democrats better work overtime in confronting this issue, or they risk sinking with this ship when they have so much important legislative work to do. I keep saying this, but if we are still having this same discussion in another few years, it will be a serious tragedy.

Finally, one blogger looks at Sen. Feingold's withdrawal proposal, another explores media debate of that issue, while another looks at Iraq's not-so-unity government.

UPDATE: Another ominous headline-- "Iraq gov't in crisis after staff abducted, tortured" (AFP)

And yet another-- Sectarian Strife in Iraq Imperils Entire Region, Analysts Warn (Washington Post)