Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2005-08-14 07:16:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Soon to be followed by an official non-denial denial!
The Washington Post is reporting that the Bush administration has significantly lowered their expectations on what can be achieved in Iraq.

The Bush administration no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning . . . We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic . . . We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude."
- senior Washington official involved in the planning of the war

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us."
- U.S. official

Sounds to me like the Washington Post found at least two career staffers within the planning side of the war -- probably either State Department or Pentagon -- who are willing to comment freely on the current expectations that their planners really have, regardless of whether it gives the Bush administration a black eye or not.

Such embarrassing statements from senior Washington non-politicos are getting more common lately, even though such people could lose their careers over it. They apparently sense blood in the water, or simply are fed up at what they've had to deal with and are not willing to take it anymore. No love lost there, apparently...

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]shortindiangirl
2005-08-14 04:56 pm UTC (link)
The rest of the world (PLUS half of this country) only tried to tell them over and over again.
Not enough times apparently.

The sad thing is that Bush's inability to read or learn from history is even more apparent. The U.S. has its own history to learn from in "setting up democracies" around the world.

Still, there is a childish optimism in such a bull in a china shop approach, and it certainly has sparked the U.S. economy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2005-08-14 07:26 pm UTC (link)
Actually, there's a good deal of debate as to whether the war has sparked the U.S. economy at all, as it has certainly driven up the price of fuel/energy, and has a relatively small and isolated stimulus effect on the economy as opposed to other wars in the past, primarily because the military-industrial complex is a smaller fraction of the total economy than in the past.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]walkingshark
2005-08-15 02:26 am UTC (link)
Now that I think of it, if we hadn't invaded there is a good chance Iraqi oil would still be on the (oil for food) market, meaning we'd have lower oil prices.

lol

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]snarkactual
2005-08-15 03:05 am UTC (link)
If it comes to pass, I suppose you'll be celebrating. OTOH, my hope is that the Washington Post is exhibiting wishful thinking. Although I suspect that's just an errant piece of optimism on my part. So when the bloodletting really starts will you still be celebrating?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2005-08-15 04:48 am UTC (link)
If there is massive bloodletting, then no, I will be celebrating. I will be hoping that some things could be done (and will have been done beforehand) from a unified international perspective to reduce the potential for bloodletting, actually.

Much could be done to make it abundantly clear to all parties that we will continue to hold them accountable for their behavior post-occupation, in a truely united, international way. It really wasn't that hard for us to stop the Serbs and Bosnians from killing each other. Hell, we did the job mostly with air power, despite the fact that it was a fairly adverse environment for it. You don't *need* to have troops on the ground to project power.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]insomnia
2005-08-15 06:48 am UTC (link)
The question I would ask is why at least two different Washington sources -- one senior -- would be reporting a shift in doctrine like this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that goals for a U.S. conflict were scaled back to reflect changed circumstances and a different reality.

You're not in Iraq to do the job that you would wish to do, though it is honorable that you try to do so. You're there to do the job that they tell you to do, and ultimately they have a lot of things on their plate. If they feel like battering your hopes somewhat to achieve some other goal, you've got to find a way to deal with it, even if it means for some a betrayal of what your fellow soldiers fought and died for.

John McCain said some interesting things today:

"Look, I've got an idea for our pentagon planners: The day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq. We not only don't need to withdraw, we need more troops there."

That said, he could still be a prisoner in Vietnam if we hadn't left that country, and Vietnam has actually done a fair amount in just a few years to modernize their society since when we reconnected with their country during the Clinton era. Maybe we're finally winning the hearts and minds... money has a tendency to do that, and it rarely comes with no strings attached.

He was also asked the following:

WALLACE: But what I don't understand, you seem to be suggesting -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth. You seem to be suggesting that it's coming from the pentagon, and that they are pushing for withdrawals, when the political people at the White House, who you think would be the most sensitive on that issue, are saying: No, the president -- we're going to stand firm.

Why would the Pentagon be softer in this regard than the White House?

MCCAIN: I have no idea, unless there's also some political considerations of the '06 election amongst some.

So, even to McCain, it appears that there are those in the Pentagon -- and probably more in the State Department -- who view Iraq as a conflict that needs to be wrapped up soon. That means that Bush is either saying one thing, while doing another -- which, if he's going to draw down the forces, makes sense -- or that the concerns which could be driving the Bush administration to settle for less in Iraq are driven by others, possibly forces more powerful than the President can really address.

Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election, but there are lots of other Republicans and Republican appointees who obviously want to hold on to what they have. Iraq is an albatross around these guy's necks, though, so it's only natural that they'd want to set the stage for a Republican win in 2006/2008.

Although it's forgotten nowadays, Reagan during his second term was not particularly popular. That's why George Bush Sr. ran successfully by distancing himself from Reagan, promising a "kinder, gentler America". I suspect that many Republicans want at least the appearance of such an America, if only to stay in power.

It sort of gives the expression "lame duck president" a whole new meaning, really. He's not only increasingly less able to enact new legislation, but apparently even his own party is starting to turn against him.

Does the dog wag the tail, or does the tail wag the dog?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…