The New Plan

Having abandonned "stay the course" rhetoric, the question arises, exactly, of how the administration's new plan for Iraq differs from the old one. If it doesn't differ, of course, then we're just staying the course. Well, the new plan has substantive components and a procedural one. Substantively, it calls for the disarmament of Shiite militias and talks aimed at incorporating Sunni Arab groups into the political process. I have no idea how many times I've seen these exact same initiatives proposed before and touted as progress. Half a dozen? Twenty? Who knows?

Procedurally, there is a new wrinkle -- the dread timeline, or at least a "timetable for a series of milestones to be pursued in the coming year." Nevertheless, General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad "did not say what American officials planned to do if the timetable is not met." So there's no actual timetable for the implementation of the new policy, and there's no actual new policy.

Meanwhile, administration figures have correctly discerned that it would be easy to manage the situation in Iraq -- to at least keep some kind of lid on the bloodshed -- if Syria and Iran were cooperating with us. Unlike weak-kneed appeasers who want to try and achieve this through talks including the governments of the United States, Iraq, and Iraq's various neighbors, the administration has hit upon the awesome "new" "policy" of talking shit about Syria and Iran in hopes that empty rhetoric and a hostile attitude will lead to the rise of a new spirit of benevolence in Damascus and Teheran. The president is like a five year-old sitting in the sandbox hoping that if he cries and screams long enough his mom will drop by and sort out his disagreements with the other kids in the park.

Comments

At the risk of taking a breezy analogy too far, I'd say that he's not really hoping for his mom to sort things out with the other kids. He's just waiting for his mom to take him home, so the next kid has to clean up the absolute mess he's made in the sand box.

Posted by Pat | October 24, 2006 10:34 AM

It's bulletin board material. The US is trying to get Syria and Iran to commit foolish penalties at the start of the next period of conflict, so that the referees will send their armies off to the penalty box, and we can go on with our power play. War is exactly like hockey, right? There's no chance that what works very occasionally in the sporting world would fail in international diplomacy, is there? It's all just a game, after all, we have to keep it in perspective, take it one day at a time, give 110%, defend our house, etc.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | October 24, 2006 10:57 AM

Once a defined timeline is made public or is leaked won't the terrorists have a date they can aim for to just wait us out? I seem to remember this as a previous Bush/Rummy/Cheney justification for not establishing timelines relating to U.S. military help in quelling the insurgency and installing a democracy. Just saying.............

Posted by steve duncan | October 24, 2006 10:57 AM

Waiting for mommy (or, more precisely, Daddy and Daddy's friends) to bail him out has always worked before for Bush.

Posted by peterg | October 24, 2006 11:23 AM

actually, i'm not sure how many 5-year-olds are still sitting in sandboxes: i'd say we're talking 3-year-olds.

that said, i've noted for a while that although bush seems to want to punt iraq to the next administration, reality on the ground may not let him.

certainly, abandoning "stay the course" even with the baker-hamilton commission to provide cover is a pretty clear indication....

Posted by howard | October 24, 2006 11:39 AM

Assuming they haven't also sh**canned "we stand down as they stand up", this timetable is a timetable for withdrawal. I guess they think they can have it both ways for two weeks.

Posted by GregPStone | October 24, 2006 11:40 AM

"Abandoned" Stay The Course? He didn't abandon it, he disappeared it. Said it never happened, disavowed any knowledge of course-staying activities. Of course, when the ship is sinking to the bottom of the briny deep, gravity calls the tune, no matter how loud the skipper shouts "Hard to starboard!"

Posted by roxtar | October 24, 2006 12:23 PM

The more things change the more they stay the same (course)...

His trash talking of Syria and Iran to get them invovled in helping in Iraq strategy is like a boy trying to get a girl to like him by repeatedly pulling her hair...99% of the time it don't work.

Posted by Porn Store Dude... | October 24, 2006 12:48 PM

steve duncan, it's in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, released in November 2005: “arbitrary deadlines or timetables for withdrawal of Coalition forces… would be irresponsible and deadly, as they would suggest to the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists that they can simply wait to win,”

Posted by hermit greg | October 24, 2006 1:49 PM

hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. hermit, you're mistaken, such a strategy statement was never released. There, Tony Snow can take the afternoon off.

Posted by steve duncan | October 24, 2006 2:57 PM

Damn! I must have linked to the secret public White House Web site!

Posted by hermit greg | October 24, 2006 3:15 PM

I wonder if greendemocrat cum Linus is still a troll for suggesting that a sectarian-based politics in Iraq may be a rather troublesome idea. I seem to remember Mr. Yglesias himself intervening in the thread (on the old typepad blog a good two years ago) to berate my former incarnation for such a suggestion. I was told repeatedly by the wise and learned that lots of countries had ethnically and religiously based politics, and I was foolish to think it would be problematic in Iraq.

I was also a troll for suggesting in these parts and elsewhere that Mr. Bush would win a second term by two or three points because his opponent failed to fully embrace the nobility of the Iraq War (and commit to seeing it through), as well as pledge his full support for the democratization and liberalization of the Arab-Muslim world.

I wonder if I'm a troll to suggest that Mrs. Clinton will not only win the Democratic primaries in 2008, but eek out a narrow victory against whichever douchebag (Giuliani, me thinks) the GOP wants to run against her.

Posted by Linus | October 25, 2006 12:37 AM