Kick the Can

Peter Feaver, the too-clever-by-half former White House politics of Iraq honcho, has an enlightening piece in Commentary where he explains that the purpose of the surge was to create political space in the United States to ensure that George W. Bush could pass off a large U.S. troop deployment in Iraq to the next administration.

As Justin Logan says, this has a nice heads I win, tales you lose quality to it:

If, by the grace of God, some subsequent U.S. president can manage to extricate us from the Iraqi quagmire without a total meltdown, the Bushies will clap each other on the back, declaring themselves visionaries. If, on the other hand, Iraq flames out entirely on the watch of a subsequent administration, the Bushies can play the Dolschtoss card and explain how The Surge Was Working and would have continued working were it not for the fecklessness of the Obama/Clinton/McCain administration.

The idea that there are, as we speak, brave young men and women risking their lives for the sake of the vanity of the fools who launched this war is more than a little maddening. But that's how it is.

Comments

Didn't we already know that the rationale behind staying in Iraq was...staying in Iraq? This just seems like admitting publicly what we all already knew.

Posted by Persia | April 2, 2008 2:50 PM

A quote from the re-raising of this point back in January:

...In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won't be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place. As AEI military analyst Thomas Donnelly has acknowledged with admirable candor, "part of the purpose of the surge was to redefine the Washington narrative," thereby deflecting calls for a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces. Hawks who had pooh-poohed the risks of invasion now portrayed the risks of withdrawal as too awful to contemplate. But a prerequisite to perpetuating the war -- and leaving it to the next president -- was to get Iraq off the front pages and out of the nightly news.

Andrew Bacevich
http://tinyurl.com/265ert

Posted by El Cid | April 2, 2008 2:53 PM

Maddening would be one word for it, but others might be disgusting and depressing. The cynicism and cowardice of these folks is really beyond belief.

Posted by scottreads | April 2, 2008 2:58 PM

Didn't we already know that the rationale behind staying in Iraq was...staying in Iraq? This just seems like admitting publicly what we all already knew.

Matt seems to like the "righteous-liberal-indignation-Two-Minutes-Hate" kind of posts today (see also the earlier "John Yoo" post). Gotta keep those stats up!

Posted by James Gary | April 2, 2008 2:58 PM

Frankly, if it were not that medieval punishments for treason (i.e., drawing and quartering) were no longer on the books, I'd prefer to have Bush and Company tired and convicted of treason rather than war crimes. Hanging is much, much too good for them.

And yes, I know exactly what it means to draw and quarter someone.

In any event, it does my heart good to imagine Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Yoo et. al. burning in the fires of hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | April 2, 2008 3:05 PM

"Matt seems to like the "righteous-liberal-indignation-Two-Minutes-Hate" kind of posts today (see also the earlier "John Yoo" post). Gotta keep those stats up!"

Yeah, I guess the appropriate reaction to enabling torture and a bloody and pointless war and torture is a stylish shrug of the shoulders and an eye-roll. Wevs, huh?

Posted by scottreads | April 2, 2008 3:08 PM

The idea that there are, as we speak, brave young men and women risking their lives for the sake of the vanity of the fools who launched this war is more than a little maddening.

Why are people only concerned about the brave ones? I'm sure there are plenty of cowardly soldiers losing their lives too. Don't they matter?

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2008 3:08 PM

Annoying Spelling Correction:

Dolchstoss

Carry on....

Posted by Simplicissimus | April 2, 2008 3:13 PM

As I recall, Atrios made this very point when the surge was announced. And I didn't even have to read Commentary to learn it.

Posted by Tourist | April 2, 2008 3:18 PM

Annoying spelling correction: "tails", not "tales"

Posted by Vidor | April 2, 2008 3:27 PM

Frankly, if it were not that medieval punishments for treason (i.e., drawing and quartering) were no longer on the books, I'd prefer to have Bush and Company tired and convicted of treason rather than war crimes...And yes, I know exactly what it means to draw and quarter someone.

Well, as I pointed out earlier this morning, just *imagine* what the international TV ratings would be on this particular type of "reality show" series...

Posted by RKU | April 2, 2008 3:28 PM

"For the Vanity of Fools" would be a great name for a book on this damned war.

Posted by justawriter | April 2, 2008 3:34 PM

"A Confederacy of Dunces" would be better.

Posted by Davis | April 2, 2008 3:39 PM

"A Confederacy of Dunces" would be better.

Posted by Davis Browne | April 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Good thing you voted into the majority in the House and Senate in 2006 so we could impose a time line for withdrawal from Iraq.

Posted by Nancy Pelosi | April 2, 2008 3:47 PM

Good thing you voted into the majority in the House and Senate in 2006 so we could impose a time line for withdrawal from Iraq.

I do think the Dems are somewhat less cupable than the Republicans. For the Dems, hanging (again, after fair trials and conviction - I'm all about due process) probably is punishment enough.

Posted by LarryM | April 2, 2008 3:55 PM

LarryM, I'm a bit more gracious than you are. I would be willing to grant them the privilege of beheading.

Posted by Tyro | April 2, 2008 4:03 PM

the purpose of the surge was to create political space in the United States to ensure that George W. Bush could pass off a large U.S. troop deployment in Iraq to the next administration.

In other news, the purpose of the Pope is to lead the Catholic Church, and be a component in jokes involving bearshit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 2, 2008 4:22 PM

Annoying Spelling Correction:

Dolchstoss

Actually that isn't right either as it's spelled:

Dolchstoß ;)

Posted by novakant | April 2, 2008 4:36 PM

I'm not so cynical that I don't think they couldn't have more than one purpose.

Still, the history is compelling, given those involved in the decision making:

Another Loathsome Vietnam Replay in Iraq

Posted by Amicus | April 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Look, Matthew, we'll make you a deal. You support repealing the 22nd Amendment, and electing George Bush to a third term, and hopefully we'll get this whole Iraq mess cleared up before a Democrat enters office.

Posted by Al | April 2, 2008 4:46 PM

"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November."

-- President George W. Bush announcing the surge, January 10, 2007

Posted by croatoan | April 2, 2008 4:51 PM

Look, Matthew, we'll make you a deal. You support repealing the 22nd Amendment, and electing George Bush to a third term, and hopefully we'll get this whole Iraq mess cleared up before a Democrat enters office.

The Al Borg respond! Resistence is futile! You will be assimilated!

Of course, the Al Borg presume that Bush could possibly win a third term. Perhaps they truly do establish their own reality.

Posted by SavageView | April 2, 2008 5:25 PM

Re: If, on the other hand, Iraq flames out entirely on the watch of a subsequent administration, the Bushies can play the Dolschtoss card and explain how The Surge Was Working and would have continued working were it not for the fecklessness of the Obama/Clinton/McCain administration.

Under a Democratic administration, yes. But of the whole thing goes to hell under McCain (who swears up and down he will continue the current policies) then the GOP will have a very hard time explaining itself. They're gambling that the Democrats will inherit the White House and hence the blame for the Iraq denouement. If McCain gets instead, they're screwed.

Posted by JonF | April 2, 2008 6:52 PM

Where's Powell?

If he doesn't show up within thirty seconds of this post, he's not earning his propagandist pay. Fire his ass!

Oh, wait, incompetence is a hallmark of the Bushies.

Never mind.

Take as long as you want, Powell.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 8:26 PM

Under a Democratic administration, yes...They're gambling that the Democrats will inherit the White House and hence the blame for the Iraq denouement. If McCain gets instead, they're screwed.

But consider matters from the the perspective of the Bushies (who mostly don't like McCain) rather than the Republicans.

If McCain gets in, there's a pretty fair chance he'll start some totally crazy *new* war with Iran, or and mayb also Russia, China, Brazil, Switzerland...

The results will be so totally, utterly disastrous for America and the entire world, that everyone will forget about all the bad and stupid things that Bush did, and fondly look back to the Bush Administration as the "Pre-Total Destruction Era".

So Bush goes down in the history books as a pretty good President...by comparison...

Posted by RKU | April 2, 2008 9:38 PM

Has anybody considered the possibility of sending UN Peace-keepers to Iraq? I think that would have to be at least marginally more effective than leaving only the "invaders" to tend to the mess that's been rendered. And that would add further insult to Bush's injury, because the UN is the route that he did not want to take! Bill O'Reilly would have a fit!

Posted by Fletcher | April 2, 2008 10:53 PM

It's been pretty clear for at least a year now (I'd date it from the installation of the do-nothing Dem majority in '06) that the primary objective of the Bush/Cheney criminal syndicate is to dump the consequences of their own addled work on their successors -- Democrat or Republican. So yeah, it's not a surprise that the real objectives of the "surge" were quite other than the stated ones. But hey, how's that different from the entire Iraq clusterfuck.

One more thing....

Matt seems to like the "righteous-liberal-indignation-Two-Minutes-Hate" kind of posts today (see also the earlier "John Yoo" post). Gotta keep those stats up!

I'm critical of Yglesias more often than not, but how's about you go fuck yourself, James Gary?

Posted by sglover | April 3, 2008 1:18 AM

"...brave young men and women risking their lives for the vanity of the fools who launched this war..."

Errant nonsense. Our people are risking their lives because something like three out of four Americans, including Matt, and an even higher percentage of their elected representatives in Congress, said it was a matter of vital national interest that they do so. We've had people risking their lives in the Persian Gulf Region in significant numbers since 1991, and it hasn't been because of "Bush lies".

Attempting to make the sacrifices of these people into some kind of exercise in gullibility is the real "vanity of fools" here.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 1:59 AM

Hey, Robert Powell -- do you have any more to say about your hatred of constitutional government in Iraq? Or have you made your loathing of Iraqi democracy so clear that you feel there's no point in adding anything to it?

Posted by 23456 | April 3, 2008 6:01 AM

Our people are risking their lives because something like three out of four Americans, including Matt, and an even higher percentage of their elected representatives in Congress, said it was a matter of vital national interest that they do so.

This is, of course, untrue. Out of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 373 of them (or 69.7%) voted for the Iraq war resolution. That's also an embarrassingly dishonest characterization of pre-war polling. But of course that's to be expected in someone who hates constitutional government as much as Robert Powell.

Still, I appreciate that he's dropped the transparent pretense, so common on the right, that the October, 2002 vote did "not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable," in favor of the truth: that it was indeed a vote to send people to kill and die. It's good to see at least a tiny amount of honesty on this.

Posted by 23456 | April 3, 2008 6:32 AM

Gee, only 69.7%? I guess that just changes everything, then. That's not "something like three out of four" in nutbag math?

I believe the count in the Senate was 78 "yes" out of 100. And Gallup showed a consistent majority of voters in favor of "invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from 1991 until 2003 in polling done about twice a year. The number in 2003 was well over 60%.

And I'm afraid 23456 isn't going to make the cut as a scholar of the Iraqi constitution. Not only has the freely elected government formally requested our assistance, we are still operating under a unanimously-approved UN mandate.

But hey, don't let the facts get in your way. I'm sure as the years go by and we continue to maintain a presence in Iraq people like 23456 will be able to slowly adjust to reality. They're just not going to be within a country mile of any decision making authority.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 11:02 AM

And I'm afraid 23456 isn't going to make the cut as a scholar of the Iraqi constitution. Not only has the freely elected government formally requested our assistance, we are still operating under a unanimously-approved UN mandate.

This'd be the "freely elected government" that can't even rely on its own police force in its own capital.

And by the way, what's keeping you from enlisting, patriot?

Posted by sglover | April 3, 2008 2:24 PM

And I'm afraid 23456 isn't going to make the cut as a scholar of the Iraqi constitution. Not only has the freely elected government formally requested our assistance, we are still operating under a unanimously-approved UN mandate.

This'd be the "freely elected government" that can't even rely on its own police force in its own capital.

And by the way, what's keeping you from enlisting, patriot?

Posted by sglover | April 3, 2008 2:45 PM

And I'm afraid 23456 isn't going to make the cut as a scholar of the Iraqi constitution. Not only has the freely elected government formally requested our assistance, we are still operating under a unanimously-approved UN mandate.

Ah, yes: that would be the freely-elected government that opposed the UN mandate renewal in 2006. The freely-elected government that sent a letter to the UN in April, 2007 opposing an extension of the mandate without a timetable for the US withdrawal. The freely-elected government that PASSED A LAW in May, 2007 restating its constitutional rights and requiring that it approve any future extension. The freely-elected government that a majority of which, after Maliki (acting on Bush's orders) got it renewed anyway, sent a letter to the Security Council saying they "reject in the strongest possible terms" the mandate's renewal. The freely-elected government that's the reason the Bush administration has given up completely on the UN, because they know they won't be able to get the mandate renewed again.

Robert, it would really be much easier for you just to admit that you despise any kind of democracy or constitutional government in Iraq. And of course you do -- it's only natural, given that the democracy in Iraq directly opposes your desire that we "continue to maintain a presence" there "as the years go by."

But taking your present course and pretending the desires of Iraqis matter to you at all just makes you look like a complete fucking moron. On the other hand, I suppose hating democracy and being a complete fucking moron are not mutually exclusive, so perhaps you should just stay the course.

Posted by 23456 | April 3, 2008 3:08 PM

sglover--
I'm proud to have served our government for over twenty-five years, in uniform and out. Part of this service was in the Persian Gulf, a sacrifice made by many tens of thousands of other Americans which is usually completely ignored by the nutbag fanatics who imagine that our entire involvement in Iraq was ginned up out of thin air by a clique of deviants in the Bush White House.

23456--Iraq has the most legitimate and representative government in the Arab world. Admittedly that's not saying much, but your attempts to speak for that government simply don't pass. Neither does your pathetic confusion of boorishness with some kind of moral superiority. I can understand your frustration--I guess it's lonely out on the lunatic fringe. But you should get used to it. There's not a chance in the world that obnoxious losers like you are going to actually influence events, except perhaps in ways that produce the opposite of what you're hoping for.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 4, 2008 3:54 AM

your attempts to speak for that government simply don't pass.

Robert, I understand that you're embarrassed that you've demonstrated that you know nothing whatsoever about Iraq. I'd be embarrassed too if I were you.

That's why I say you'd be much better off just admitting that you hate the most legitimate and representative government in the Arab world, since they interfere with your dream of occupying Iraq indefinitely. That way you wouldn't have to respond to descriptions of reality with meaningless gibberish.

On the other hand, it may be that your commitment to occupying Iraq in defiance of the most legitimate and representative government in the Arab world is essentially theological. In that case I'll just have to keep calling you a fucking moron.

ASTRONOMERS: The earth orbits around the sun, not the other way around. We have determined this through observation, which anyone with an honest interest in this subject can easily replicate themselves.

CARDINAL ROBERT POWELL, CIRCA 1616: Your attempts to speak for the earth simply don't pass.

ASTRONOMERS: Wow, you're a fucking moron.

Posted by 23456 | April 4, 2008 11:33 AM

Just to be clear, the Iraqi government has not in any way, shape, or form requested the US to leave. When it does, if it does, we will.

Recent BBC polling shows that a majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave now. Leading Iraqi officials are regularly quoted in the press suggesting that they will need our support for years. Barack Obama's chief Iraq expert suggested in a recent paper that we will probably need about 80,000 troops in Iraq at least through 2009.

23456 floats gracefully away outside the mainstream of rational opinion, foaming at the mouth in bitterness and frustration. Nobody cares. Goodbye.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 4, 2008 3:53 PM

the Iraqi government has not in any way, shape, or form requested the US to leave. When it does, if it does, we will.

Robert, I know you're determined to keep showing the world what a complete fucking moron you are. But you've now won five straight Moron Super Bowls. Just ease off and enjoy life! Show your grandchildren all the clipping from your moron glory days.

For instance, this is a good one:

June 5, 2007

Iraqi parliament demands say in any extension of U.S.-led forces

(AP) Iraqi legislators led by followers of a radical Shiite cleric passed a resolution Tuesday requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission for asking the United Nations to extend the mandate of U.S.-led forces in Iraq...

"If the government wants to extend the presence of the multinational forces, it has to come to us in the parliament to convince us first," said the Sunni parliament speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.

And we can't forget this!

June 7, 2007

(AP) ...The new bloodshed came a day after followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr pushed through a resolution in Iraq's parliament requiring the Baghdad government to obtain parliament's approval for future extensions of the U.N. mandate for U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

But this, below, is perhaps your moment of greatest triumph. Let's ask Brig. Gen. Robert Holmes, Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Central Command, to explain on June 6, 2007 how you are one of the greatest morons who's ever lived:

Q General, good morning. Andrew Lubin from ON Point...I see yesterday the Iraqi parliament voted -- passed a binding resolution that's going to let them probably block extension of the U.N. mandate under which we're there. What do we do about this, or can we do anything about this?

GEN. HOLMES: Well, you know, that -- as I would look at the mandate, of course, it is the overarching reason that gives us authorities. But that's a policy decision that -- you know, we would then have to look and take lead of our diplomatic -- our State Department and our diplomatic instrument of power to determine how we're going to play that...

So yeah, I look at what you've just said as certainly a challenge for the diplomats. For those of us in the uniform, we've got to continue to focus on what we do. And that is to provide security, and we do that through partnering with the Iraqi security forces --

Q This yanks the magic carpet right out from under us and under the -- our IA and IP partners.

GEN. HOLMES: Well, again, like I say, it certainly would present a challenge. But I would have to defer -- you know, I have to stay in my lane as a military guy. And I've got to defer that to the folks in the three-piece suits that do the policy.

Fortunately, the "folks in the three-piece suits that do the policy" despise the most legitimate and representative government in the Arab world -- just like Robert Powell does! So at the end of 2007, they told the rule of law in Iraq and the Iraqi constitution "fuck you" -- just like Robert Powell does!

Robert, I will give you this: you are lots of fun to ridicule.

Posted by 23456 | April 4, 2008 4:44 PM