Tumble Weed (Bush) Watch 

archived: 21 Nov - 3 Dec, 2005         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  12/1/2005 

                        ARE WE WINNING?
                        [Authored by Jay Greene*] 

Comparisons are both odious and inevitable.  Faced with difficult situations, we seek relevance or reassurance in comparing the present with some experience in the past.  We want to measure where we are.  Also we want to bolster our arguments.  We want to say, "See, once we did this and it came out OK and we're doing the same thing now, and it will turn out OK." 

Thus, this morning, Bush compared Iraq with WWII to bolster his argument we don't need a "timetable."  We didn't have a timetable in WWII he said and wars aren't won with timetables, he said.  

He is, of course, incorrect - glaringly so - on several points. 

Firstly, when making comparisons, one should take care they are apt. Iraq is not WWII, not only in scale but simply because the latter was conventional warfare, government against government and uniformed army against uniformed army.  Iraq is unlike any war we have fought, except the Philippine insurgency led by Aguinaldo, 1899-1903.  

Secondly, Bush errs in saying WWII was not won on a timetable.Every operation in the European and Pacific theaters was planned and executed on timetables. "Timetable" means both a timeline and markers by which to measure progress; in the Pacific, an island was to be secured within a certain time frame, and within that, so many hundreds of yards ashore were to be taken by D+1, another marker by D+2, etc.  Sometimes, timetables fell behind, other times they were exceeded stunningly.  The breakout from Normandy in late July 1944 and the taking of Paris a month later exceeded the planned timetable; the German counteroffensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, set back our timetable for reaching and crossing the Rhine by a considerable margin. 

This administration has refused to discuss or divulge what I am sure they have, namely, a timetable expressed as markers, or goals to be achieved, measurable indicators of progress. 

Bush repeats, tiresomely, "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."  What does this mean?  By what measure will we know the Iraqis have stood up?  Extent of secure territory? Casualties? Number of insurgent attacks launched? 

An absence of specificity, and the failure to deal with the most obvious questions, are serious weaknesses in the Administration's case, apart from the manifest lack of success in the field, however measured.  

One measure that has been discussed publicly is the number of Iraqi battalions able to operate independently.  Bush says there are 100 of these at present; Casey, his man in the field, says there is one. "Independently" means, I assume but the Pentagon does not define, capable of planning and executing missions on their own, calling upon American units for backup if needed but not required on every mission. 

President Bush and General Casey, can you agree, and inform us citizens, how many Iraqi battalions meet this definition?  (Or, if that is an incorrect definition of "independently" provide the correct definition.) 

(Query: has the size of an Iraqi battalion been determined?  Same number of companies of the same size and with the same equipment as the USA?  If there are differences, what re they?) 

The President is saying, in effect, "we'll know when we know."  This is patently unsatisfactory to all but the most uncritically loyal of the administration’s supporters.  I submit that no thinking citizen can accept this.  Committed liberals, radical lefties, chromic Bush haters are not the only ones critical of our Iraq policies and lack of accomplishment.  William Kristol is but one of many on the right saying we went very wrong following Saddam's overthrow and we are bogged down at present. 

Comparisons (to return to that theme) are made with Vietnam.  Such comparisons can be apt or inapt.  In one sense Vietnam was different in that there were North Vietnam units in the field and territory held and territory denied were more easily determined there than in Iraq.  More easily determined now, in comparison with Iraq, but not so easily determined at the time in Vietnam. 

But like Iraq now, there was an insurgency going on in Vietnam, with an elusive enemy.  Our only measure of success was the body count and that was so atrociously unreliable that we have not used it in this war. 

The most apt comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq are the inconclusive nature of the conflict; the difficulty in quantification; and the sense among the citizenry at home that we are making no progress, despite repeated assurance we are winning, we will prevail, our cause is a worthy one. 

Dylan wrote a song in the sixties called "No Direction Home."  Now, there's an apt comparison! 

_____

 *Junkie:  Jay Greene, now retired, held several top management posts in the steamship industry and international trade on the Pacific Coast.  Jay is a frequent contributor to TPJ.  

Bush’s “stay the course” address to the nation has garnered wide ranging disapproval from writers across the United States.  Consider these excerpts:            

12/1/05 USA Today

“Iraq's realities shadow Bush's optimistic victory strategy”  

Perhaps by his nature, President Bush can't help but be a cheerleader. Perhaps given the nature of his audience Wednesday — midshipmen at the Naval Academy training for war — a resolutely upbeat description of the situation in Iraq was appropriate. 

But if the president's goal in kicking off a series of speeches detailing his Iraq policy was to rebuild support for the war, he missed his moment. 

Bush painted a clearer picture of the increasing capability of Iraqi security forces and of his own goals. He rightly rejected setting a timetable for withdrawal, saying that would depend on conditions in Iraq. But in doing so, he threw into sharper relief the long-running disconnect between his rosy perceptions and what's attainable. 

Bush's narrative seemed at times more plucked from a black-and-white fantasy than the more complex reality.  . . .  

[H]e simply ignored glaring problems, particularly in the nature of the Iraqi troops who are taking over. On the ground, for instance, there are troubling reports of sectarian militias joining the security forces as a cover for their own agendas, and that they favor Saddam-style torture. The specter arises of rival militias fighting a civil war — perhaps being trained and armed by the United States. . . .  

Perhaps the president thinks he can use the White House megaphone to drown out those concerns as well as the grim facts of Iraq. Or, more ominously, perhaps he is so isolated that he believes his own spin. 

Either way, it won't work. He will succeed only if he can credibly re-engage a growing majority that has lost trust in his war policies. That will take more than cheerleading. 

12/1/05 Washington Post

“President's 'Strategy for Victory' Does Not Address Problems” 

President Bush's "strategy for victory" catalogues progress in Iraq over the past 32 months, but also omits or glosses over complications, problems and uncertainties in the most ambitious U.S. military intervention since Vietnam. . . .  

[T]he rising numbers [of Iraqi troops] mask lingering Iraqi weaknesses and have not curbed insurgent attacks. "There's been an increase in the number of Iraqis in training, but more Americans are dying and violence is increasing," said Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Pentagon official now at the Center for American Progress.  . . .  

Bush yesterday described his strategy as "clear, hold and build." But in practice, the military has come under fire for too much emphasis on chasing insurgents around the country and not enough on securing areas that have been cleared of enemy fighters. U.S. and Iraqi troops have often had to return to fight in towns where they had fought before.  . . .  

On the political front, the new strategy document says staying the course in Iraq is the key to the fate of the greater Middle East. If the United States left before the mission was finished, it said, "Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the region -- a historic opportunity. . . forever lost." 

But a new public opinion poll to be released tomorrow finds that 77 percent of those surveyed in six countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, all U.S. allies -- say Iraqis are worse off than before the war began in 2003.  . . .  

Bush's emphasis on military strategy also "violates" the first rule of counterinsurgency, which is politics first, said Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon. "I didn't see much effort to improve the constitution, where things like equitable oil revenues are critical and are not yet in the constitution or assured. . . . The president seems to dwell on the technical military training issue, which is important but is not enough to constitute the core of a strategy." 

12/1/05 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

“Iraq War: Mission replayed” 

President Bush played his Iraqi cards, the worn ones he always puts on the table. 

His speech Wednesday offered a few traces of cause for optimism. He talked about economic rebuilding, which has been an unaccomplished necessity there and in Afghanistan since Day One. He spoke of rebuilding Iraqi security forces. Most observers see some modest improvements. But the rosy picture of fast progress "beyond description" drawn by the president appears as flat as a 10th-century landscape painting. 

Essentially, the president's speech was little more than a replay of what he said in 2002 as he systematically prepared to invade, prematurely celebrated "Mission Accomplished" in 2003 and relentlessly defended his policies during last year's election campaign.

_____________________________________________

UPDATED:  November 29, 2005 

                        AN OLD LADY, A TEACHER AND A REPORTER 

The Bush administration continues to hold citizens and non-citizens to long terms of imprisonment without the benefit of trial.  

One sage judge recently asked the government if these three hypothetical individuals would be “enemy combatants:” 

What about "a little old lady in Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charitable organization that helps orphans in Afghanistan but really is a front to finance Al Qaeda activities?" she asked.

And what about a resident of Dublin "who teaches English to the son of a person the C.I.A. knows to be a member of Al Qaeda?"

And "what about a Wall Street Journal reporter, working in Afghanistan, who knows the exact location of Osama bin Laden but does not reveal it to the United States government in order to protect her source?"  -- New York Times                       

The government contends that it could hold all three as “enemy combatants.”   

In Jose Padilla’s case, the Bush administration changed his status from “enemy combatant” to one of a “criminal” as Padilla’s case was being finalized before the Supreme Court.  

The upshot of that approach, underscored by the decision in Mr. Padilla's case, is that no one outside the administration knows just how the determination is made whether to handle a terror suspect as an enemy combatant or as a common criminal, to hold him indefinitely without charges in a military facility or to charge him in court.

Indeed, citing the need to combat terrorism, the administration has argued, with varying degrees of success, that judges should have essentially no role in reviewing its decisions. The change in Mr. Padilla's status, just days before the government's legal papers were due in his appeal to the Supreme Court, suggested to many legal observers that the administration wanted to keep the court out of the case.

"The position of the executive branch," said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University who has consulted with lawyers for several detainees, "is that it can be judge, jury and executioner." -- New York Times (emphasis added) 

Is this the system of constitutional justice that Americans want America to be known for?   

The Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor writing, issued one opinion that narrowly defined “enemy combatant” that would exclude, at least, the “Old Lady” and “The Teacher.”  Justice O’Connor is retiring. 

Would a Justice Alito protect the rights of individuals from a government acting as “judge, jury and executioner?”

_____________________________________________

                        TUMBLING TUMBLE WEED                   

Bush’s approval rating fell (Trail Mo) -2.04% in November from October, the second worst month for Bush in 2005. Only Bush’s drop from July through August (Trail Mo -2.38%) exceeded his public rating in November. 

November’s results are significant in several other respects: 

The spread between those approving and disapproving of Bush’s performance has crossed -20% for the first time.

The spread between those approving and disapproving Bush’s performance has fallen from single digits to over -20% in a mere three months; September, October and November. Six months elapsed before the spread fell from a positive number to a negative number greater than -10%; March through September. 

Of twelve polls during the month that TPJ followed, Bush reached =/> 40% in only two polls; a first.  Bush’s disapproval rate reached =/> 60% in three polls, another first. 

The deteriorating progression is unmistakable.  As Bush’s falling approval ratings approached the level of “core” Republican constituency, one would have speculated that Bush’s decline would slow or even abate.  November has defied that logic.

                        SHIFT 

The shift in American public opinion is appearing in an even greater number of news reports.  The central issue dominating these reports is the war in Iraq. 

The Boston Globe published this report (emphasis added): 

At a meeting with senior citizens in Wrentham [Massachusetts] this week, Representative James McGovern was ready to talk about the sweeping Medicare prescription drug plan. Instead, the first question a senior at the event asked the Worcester Democrat was, ''When are we getting out of Iraq?"

The war has gone on for more than 2 1/2 years, but the debate over the action escalated dramatically in the past week, as the House of Representatives engaged in a nasty fight over the reasons for the war and the best way to end it. 

The New York Times interviewed seventy pro-Bush supporters across the United States.  They summarize (emphasis added): 

Many people who voted for Mr. Bush a year ago had trouble pinning their current discontent on any one thing. Many mentioned the hurricane and the indictment of a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, which some said raised doubts about the president's candor and his judgment. But there was a sense that something had veered off course in the last few months, and the war was the one constant. Over and over, even some of Mr. Bush's supporters raised comparisons with Vietnam. 

The mainstream media stories above reflect public attitudes toward the war in Iraq reflected in current polling by CNN/USA Today/Gallup (Nov. 11-13, 2005): 

The message for Democrats is quite simple, change public attitudes to provide the foundation to end the war: 

As Bush's popularity slumps, public support for the war crumbles and U.S. casualties mount, Democrats nationwide are stepping up their attacks on the president and pressing for a clearer exit strategy.

"There's been a rift in the Democratic Party about Iraq from the beginning," said Amy Walter, a congressional expert for the Washington-based Cook Political Report. "As the American public changes its views, it makes it easier for these guys (to change)." – Sacramento Bee 

Democrats must keep making the case to citizens that the Bush administration fabricated the justifications for war.  A war so conceived and prosecuted can never bring peace and justice to to the victor or the vanquished.  Even as public attitudes shift, Bush continues to talk of staying the course.  The Oxford Research Group describes what that course may be: 

The war in Iraq is still in its early stages and US and British troops are likely to be bogged down in the conflict for decades, a report by the Oxford Research Group said on Wednesday.

The independent think tank’s report will make unwelcome reading for the British and US governments, both of which have indicated that they hope to begin reducing the number of troops in Iraq after the next Iraqi parliamentary elections in December. – Infoshop (emphasis added) 

The Economist clearly articulates the Republican strategy: 

The question therefore is not whether America should eventually reduce its forces in Iraq, but how to ensure that the Iraqi security forces “stand up” as America “stands down”.

That has always been Mr Bush's line, but with no firm details. This week, however, some concrete numbers started to be tossed around. On November 20th, Donald Rumsfeld, Mr Bush's defence secretary, said that once Iraq's December 15th elections are safely past, he plans to withdraw some 20,000 troops. (This, be it noted, was not far off the number of extra troops deployed to police the elections.) On November 22nd, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, told Fox News that since Iraqi forces were getting “more and more capable”, she did “not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they are now for very much longer.” The next day, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon had set benchmarks for the circumstances under which troops could be withdrawn, and that under a “moderately optimistic” scenario, the number could be reduced by about a third, to 100,000, by the end of 2006. -- Economist (emphasis added) 

Democrats should be talking to every American that the Republican rhetoric is just that – rhetoric designed to keep America in Iraq.  

                        SELLING AMERICA