April 8, 2007
". . . the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for, it insists on making war." --La Follette
Right after the November 2006 midterm congressional election - where voters replaced Bush's enabling republican majority with a majority of Democrats tasked to end his Iraq occupation - Bush knew, right along with everyone else, that it was the determination of a solid plurality of Americans that there was nothing left to 'win' in Iraq and nothing worth sacrificing more American lives to achieve. After feigning concern for the judgment expressed in the reversal of both houses of Congress by acknowledging the independent Iraq Study Group and their recommendation to withdrawal, Bush cynically announced the formation of his own 'study group' comprised of the same Pentagon brass who'd been managing Bush's ideological struggle 'on the ground' all along.
Bush treated Baker's ISG report as political cover, rather than a indictment of his illegal fiasco. In his address, Bush claimed that the 77 recommendations in the report were actually an endorsement of his Iraq 'strategy'.
"The Iraq Study Group's report also explicitly endorses the strategic goal we've set in Iraq: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself," Bush told Americans Saturday. "Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people," he said.
But, the ISG report was not just another administration position paper, or some rubber stamp of Bush's "way forward." The ISG report was a recommendation to begin to withdraw our forces from Iraq, without waiting indefinitely for Iraqi forces to 'stand up' before our soldiers begin to 'stand down'. It specifically calls for the "gradual" reduction of 15 American combat brigades in Iraq by early 2008. The advice from the ISG, that there is still some room for some "success" in Iraq, is more of a pipe dream that relies on the unlikely adoption of the entirety of the group's proposals, rather than the piecemeal cherry picking Bush's feint praise for the report suggested would be the way he used the recommendations, if at all.
Even before the group released its proposals, Bush made it clear that he was looking for a "way forward" with his bloody occupation, not a way out. He heaped praise on the folks who are managing the politics "on the ground" in Iraq.
"No question in my mind, there are some very brave State Department officials who are engaged in this really important endeavor," Bush said of Condi Rice's diplomatic warriors. "I appreciate the advice I got from those folks in the field. And that advice is an important part, an important component of putting together a new way forward in Iraq," he told reporters.
"There's no question we've got to make sure that the State Department and the Defense Department are -- the efforts and their recommendations are closely coordinated so that when I do speak to the American people, they will know that I've listened to all aspects of government, and that the way forward is the way forward to achieve our objective: to succeed in Iraq," Bush explained.
Bush wanted us to know that he was listening to his defective "government", rather than listening to the independent, bipartisan ISG recommendations, or, listen to two out of three Americans who, according to polling for months before the election and months afterward, believe the United States is losing ground in Iraq, and the over 60% percent of Americans who say they want the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Bush also wants us to know that he's listening to his generals; not the ones he replaced right after the election, but the handpicked cabal who apparently have no problem with helping their lame-duck commander subvert the will of Americans and Congress as they press our troops forward. He complained in his radio address this weekend about Congress passing legislation that would "substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field."
His new general in command in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, says, however, that decisions about the scope of the mission he's busy prosecuting are best left "to the policymakers" in Washington.
"It's up to other people to determine the policies, to resource those policies from which our mission emanates," Gen. Petraeus said in an interview with Jim Leher this week.
Petraeus is too modest. It was the recommendation of generals in Iraq to "surge" forward and escalate the Iraq occupation by deploying as many as 20,000 new American combat forces to 130,000 bogged down there already. General John Abizaid, in charge of the US Central Command had reportedly resisted the introduction of new troops, but his exit made way for Gen. Petraeus' new command; on board with the growing consensus in the Bush regime to push forward to "win" the occupation. At any rate, Petraeus didn't shy away from signaling what he thinks his mission in Iraq should be.
"If those resources are not forthcoming, then, obviously, it would have an impact on us," Petraeus warned. "If things are done that give aid and comfort to the enemy or worry our partners, then obviously that does not help," he said, in an obvious attempt to portray a cut-off in funds as "aid and comfort to the enemy."
Congress has something to say in who our forces regard as an 'enemy' as they execute their constitutional authority to declare war. In the original authorization to use military force in Iraq, there is no permission to wage war against Islamic militants or nation-build, but Petraeus assumes it's all in there as he pushes our forces forward defending the Maliki junta against the specter of an Iraqi al-Qaeda. Asked by Leher about the more than 160 Americans that had been killed in a period of seven weeks, and the more than 5,000 Iraqis and double the number of Iraqi police killed from February to March, Petraeus blamed al-Qaeda instead of the sectarian violence which almost everyone agrees is the main source of the violence.
"It tells us, as I noted," Gen. Petraeus said, "that al-Qaida is still capable and able to cause significant death of innocent civilians."
It's that inevitable exercise of arbitrary judgment of generals in the field which makes it imperative that our civilian overseers of the military directly exercise their authority to define the mission of our nation's defenders. Far more pernicious than Bush's concern about Congress "substituting their judgment" for that of the generals, is the prospect of our military abroad operating under wide discretion to pick and choose who our nation is warring against; substituting their military judgment for that of the "policymakers" in Washington. Anyone who claims they don't know by now that Congress is determined to end the occupation, is either in extreme isolation or lying.
In Washington, Bush has assumed the posture that Congress should legislate according to his whim and will, despite the loss of his enabling republican majority. It's an amazing display as Bush attempts to dictate according to legislation which hasn't even been reconciled and reached his desk. He's impatient to exercise his first veto and turn his back on the legislative majority rebuke. He's so accustomed to having his way with impunity that he's taken to attacking the Democratic opposition's decision to send him a bill contrary to his imperious dictates.
"In both the House and Senate," Bush complained in his radio address, "Democratic majorities have passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders, set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, and fund domestic spending that has nothing to do with the war. The Democrats who passed these bills know that I will veto either version if it reaches my desk, and they know my veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation," he said.
Amazing, isn't it, how Congress can act in complete disregard of Bush's threat to obstruct their will? Their defiance actually mirrors Bush's own obstinacy, since the November election, to their clear intent to follow through on the will of Americans as expressed in the votes which allowed them to ascend to office.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said out loud at the end of January in answering reporters questions, what was obvious to everyone who has watched Bush subvert the will of Congress with 'signing statements' declaring that his Executive branch will exercise whatever authority they imagine without regard to the letter or intent of the laws that he approves with his signature - the very laws he's sworn to defend and uphold. Rep. Pelosi called Bush out on his rush to escalate the occupation in the face of the clear calls for an exit plan, and the clear intent of the new majority to implement that exit.
"The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources," Speaker Pelosi said. "That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way."
I guess it's too much expect this duplicitous White House to acknowledge their own hypocrisy, but they couldn't have forgotten that 6 days before the deployment, National Security Adviser Hadley let the cat out of the bag on MTP about the rush to deploy before Congress could act.
RUSSERT: "If Congress decides to cut off funds for the new troops being deployed to Iraq, will the president accept that decision by Congress and abide by it?"
HADLEY: "Tim, we're not there yet. We have funds in the '07 appropriations bill to deploy these troops. I think once they get in harm's way, Congress' tradition is to support those troops . . ."
Having admitted that he put off his 'critical review' of his Iraq policy until after November of last year because he didn't want the elections to 'interfere' -- and again for 7 weeks after the elections so he could go on a 'listening tour' -- Bush had no excuse for hurrying troops into Iraq to implement his already unpopular 'plan'. The rush of troops into Iraq ahead of congressional action was the same type of naked politics Bush has practiced all throughout his presidency with the help of his presumptive majority of republican rubber-stamps.
Bush is complaining that "on the front lines," the military is now forced to make cuts in other areas to "cover the shortfall." But, it is Bush who is responsible for packing troops into Iraq ahead of the predictable congressional action calling for their withdrawal. Any "shortfall" they might be suffering is a direct result of Bush's insistence on putting them in harms way to fight and die in a conflict which is widely unsupported, both in the country and in Congress.
Bush has decided to subvert Congress' intent by stringing out our military forces to the degree that they suffer shortages affecting their safety, security, and well-being. It's not the money which has been denied Bush; it's a denial of permission for the continuation of his open-ended occupation. Bush and his generals are looking for ways around receiving and accepting the judgment of Congress that they begin to end it all and bring our soldiers home. They've decided that packing more troops, unprepared, in between the warring faction of Iraq as they await that verdict from our legislators will help them with their political argument. They're gambling that those opposed to the Iraq occupation will flinch when presented with the plights of soldiers suffering the consequences of Bush's cynical deployment.
This administration's more than willing to play chicken with our troops in Iraq, until they get their way to continue with their militarism, by wedging our soldiers in the middle of the civil war and complaining that the money provided by Congress for their well-being is too tainted with restrictions on their ability to continue their military aggression indefinitely.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
