Historical Document

Mike Allen, "How Bush Plans to Get Out of Iraq", Time, November 30, 2005:

But read between the lines, and it is clear that the administration is setting a predicate for substantially reducing the 155,000 troops now in Iraq ahead of the midterm congressional elections in November 2006. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials have been laying the groundwork for weeks, and Bush removed any remaining mystery when he said in Texas on Tuesday that the Naval Academy speech would outline "the progress we're making in training Iraqis to provide security for their country"—his central criterion for bringing U.S. forces home.

Bush advisers tell TIME that the speech and document are aimed at framing a graduated departure from Iraq in the President's own terms, so that he can make it appeared principled and deliberate, rather than a response to pressure from public polls or needling by Democrats. "People on the Hill say he has to get out of there," a senior administration official said.

But of course Allen was wrong, we didn't leave Iraq, and many Americans have died as a result.

Comments

Give this man Allen a Medal of Freedom amidst great pomp in the White House.

Posted by gregor | July 3, 2008 2:32 PM

Many of us, for a long time, had predicted that Bush would leave the messes of Iraq and Afghanistan for the next guy. Mission accomplished.

Maybe we should write for Time?

Posted by LFC | July 3, 2008 2:43 PM

I suppose this will sound odd in this forum, but I grudgingly respect Bush for not bailing earlier. It would have been better for his reputation and for his party (just like the immigration fiasco) for him to follow practical political concerns. He is a stubborn bastard, but in Iraq he has taken America's responsibility seriously once we were in Iraq to establish some form of stability before we withdraw.

It is somewhat revolting to me when people evaluate situations, as Matt does, in terms of 'American deaths'. I would prefer, once the U.S. has become enmeshed in a situation that it reduce all deaths to the extent possible, rather than simply American deaths. I opposed the Iraq war, and I wish we could be out now, but I think it reflects well on Bush that he has not taken the easy way out. Certainly it is a more responsible position than supporting entering the war (a la the Clinton's and even dear Matt Y., then demanding a withdrawal when the poll numbers shifted).

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 2:59 PM

I suppose this will sound odd in this forum, but I grudgingly respect Bush for not bailing earlier. It would have been better for his reputation and for his party (just like the immigration fiasco) for him to follow practical political concerns. He is a stubborn bastard, but in Iraq he has taken America's responsibility seriously once we were in Iraq to establish some form of stability before we withdraw.

It is somewhat revolting to me when people evaluate situations, as Matt does, in terms of 'American deaths'. I would prefer, once the U.S. has become enmeshed in a situation that it reduce all deaths to the extent possible, rather than simply American deaths. I opposed the Iraq war, and I wish we could be out now, but I think it reflects well on Bush that he has not taken the easy way out. Certainly it is a more responsible position than supporting entering the war (a la the Clinton's and even dear Matt Y., then demanding a withdrawal when the poll numbers shifted).

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 3:02 PM

I suppose this will sound odd in this forum, but I grudgingly respect Bush for not bailing earlier. It would have been better for his reputation and for his party (just like the immigration fiasco) for him to follow practical political concerns. He is a stubborn bastard, but in Iraq he has taken America's responsibility seriously once we were in Iraq to establish some form of stability before we withdraw.

It is somewhat revolting to me when people evaluate situations, as Matt does, in terms of 'American deaths'. I would prefer, once the U.S. has become enmeshed in a situation that it reduce all deaths to the extent possible, rather than simply American deaths. I opposed the Iraq war, and I wish we could be out now, but I think it reflects well on Bush that he has not taken the easy way out. Certainly it is a more responsible position than supporting entering the war (a la the Clinton's and even dear Matt Y., then demanding a withdrawal when the poll numbers shifted).

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 3:02 PM

Yeah, it does sound odd. I don't think 100 US soldiers dying is worth saving the lives of 150 Iraqis (or Burmese, or Zimbabweans, or whatever), and I'm pretty sure most people agree. That's why it generally isn't our policy to occupy other countries whenever people are dying.

Posted by Adam | July 3, 2008 3:06 PM

rab said... He is a stubborn bastard, but in Iraq he has taken America's responsibility seriously once we were in Iraq to establish some form of stability before we withdraw.

I disagree. He did not take our responsibility seriously when we attacked or for years afterward. He just hung in and hoped it would all work out. One only has to look at his actual prosecution of the war, his constant cheerleading, and his continual downgrading of the definition of "success" to realize that he simply isn't going to ever admit that he was wrong.

I'll give you the "stubborn bastard" part, though.

Posted by LFC | July 3, 2008 3:21 PM

I grudgingly respect Bush for not bailing earlier.

Similarly, I grudgingly respect American automakers for not bailing on their commitment to large, gas-guzzling SUVs. They are stubborn bastards, but they have taken seriously America's responsibility to remain addicted to oil and completely dependent on driving.

Posted by James Gary | July 3, 2008 3:30 PM

"Yeah, it does sound odd. I don't think 100 US soldiers dying is worth saving the lives of 150 Iraqis (or Burmese, or Zimbabweans, or whatever), and I'm pretty sure most people agree. That's why it generally isn't our policy to occupy other countries whenever people are dying."

Right, I think the overall lesson of Iraq is stay the hell out of other countries. But we had already entered Iraq; at that point I think the U.S. has a responsibility to minimize total rather than just U.S. deaths.

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 3:43 PM

"Similarly, I grudgingly respect American automakers for not bailing on their commitment to large, gas-guzzling SUVs. They are stubborn bastards, but they have taken seriously America's responsibility to remain addicted to oil and completely dependent on driving."

The analogy is inapposite. Bush, after all, is pursuing stability in Iraq. That is a good goal. The debate centers around how achievable it is and the level of resources allocated to it.

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 3:51 PM

The analogy is inapposite. Bush, after all, is pursuing stability in Iraq. That is a good goal. The debate centers around how achievable it is and the level of resources allocated to it.

And the Big Three automakers are pursuing comfort, driver enjoyment, convenience, and safety. Those are good goals. The debate centers around how achievable those goals are and the level of resources allocated to them.

Posted by James Gary | July 3, 2008 4:01 PM

You had phased their goal as a "responsibility to remain addicted to oil and completely dependent on driving." That is not a good goal...of course, their goal really is profit maximization, which is not a particularly good (or bad) goal. My point was that Bush was pursued a policy choice that took U.S. responsibilities in Iraq seriously at a cost to him and his party. The same can not be said of car companies, which exist to provide a return to shareholders. Either way, I am glad that this commitment led to the surge, which has been successful enough, to paraphrase Matt, that all options look better going forward.

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 4:13 PM

I don't think that the motivations have ever been about what is good for the Iraqis. It is quite naive to assert that he is pursuing stability in Iraq just because he says so.

Oil, election, vanity, legacy, stubbornness, Oedipus, whatever, but definitely not the welfare of the Iraqis.

If tens of percent of the people of the country have been rendered refugees because of the war, and no particular effort is being made to make their situation better ( hell they don't even want to count how many died ), the welfare of Iraqis could never have been the motivation.

As a nation, we have somehow decided to delude ourselves that we are doing it for the Iraqis.

Posted by gregor | July 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Well you are welcome to any interpretation of Bush's motives you like, and most courses of action are guided by multiple motives, which makes 'x or y' motive arguments unhelpful. As Matt has noted, the reason for invading Iraq certainly was not oil. Stability in Iraq certainly seems like a plausible motive that (partially, like all motives) explains U.S. policy in Iraq over the past four years. Of course, that policy goal has been balanced against other policy goals during that time period.

Posted by rab | July 3, 2008 4:24 PM

The goal was hegemony, rab, and that is still what he is trying to achieve. In order for that to be achieved, yes, it has to be stable. But that is like saying it's commendable of the doctor to stabilize the death row inmate's mental health so they can execute him. Or healing the sick slave so he can go back to work.

Posted by Tom | July 3, 2008 4:33 PM

I mean this the best way possible, rab. Are you a troll?

It's fine if you are, then we just won't discuss it.

If not, what world have you been living in? Iraq WAS ALREADY stable before we invaded it. Stability WAS NEVER A REMOTE reason for this war.

The reasons for staying in the war are indeed debatable, but only madmen pursue indefinite warfare for the sake of peace WHERE THEY'RE FIGHTING THE WAR.

Posted by Luke | July 3, 2008 4:39 PM

Who cares?

Posted by Dick Cheney | July 3, 2008 4:54 PM

Perhaps someone has made this point already, if so I apologize. More than Americans have died in this war. Many more people than Americans have died in this war. Perhaps the closing line should reflect that obvious and morally significant fact.

Posted by jcasey | July 3, 2008 4:54 PM

rab writes: "As Matt has noted, the reason for invading Iraq certainly was not oil."

Bullshit. If Iraq didn't have huge oil reserves there wouldn't have been an invasion. You can get away with saying it wasn't the only reason, but if you think it wasn't a large part of the calculus you're an idiot, insane, or both.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 3, 2008 5:30 PM

If Matt has noted that the reason for invading certainly was not oil, he is absolutely wrong.

Posted by gregor | July 3, 2008 5:55 PM

Bush, after all, is pursuing stability in Iraq

Objection, your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence!

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | July 3, 2008 6:13 PM

Morons here think that 100 US soldiers are dying to prevent 150 Iraqis from dying.

It's the other way around.

And the 100 US soldiers are dying BECAUSE they caused 150 Iraqi civilians to die. Actually the figure would be more along the lines of 100 to a thousand Iraqi civilians dying for EACH of those 100 US soldiers. The US military has killed an estimated three hundred thousand Iraqi civilians in exchange for 4,000 US troops. And the war itself has killed over a million and displaced four million more.

Morons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 3, 2008 6:29 PM

As I've said before, folks need to get it into their mind that Politico is nothing more than Pajamas Media 2.0. All they did was go out and rope in the cheapest hack reporters they could find from the corporate media and gussy up the graphics a bit.

Don't believe me? Then how else to explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgmJW5gwn7k

As the election nears, I expect they'll show their true stripes more and more. Better that people start putting this outfit in the property context now.

And as for Mike Allen, he is not a "legitimate" journalist. Indeed, it's not like he's even pretending anymore:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/05/14/BL2008051401929_pf.html

Posted by Bill in Chicago | July 3, 2008 6:50 PM

Rab...you're spot on! We Likudniks need to stick together.

Posted by Douglas F. | July 3, 2008 9:03 PM

Rab...you're spot on! We Likudniks need to stick together.

Posted by Douglas F. | July 3, 2008 9:04 PM

*chuckle*

Somebody still thinks Bush has been pursuing 'stability' in Iraq.

It's like dealing with a teenager who is told to do his math homework, but insists that if he just practices the drums instead, the math homework will take care of itself.

In no whatsoever have Bush's policies been aimed at stability in Iraq. One does not get stability in a country by invading in force and toppling the existing government. Installing a puppet regime and engaging in a program of wasteful largesse? These are also things that have not helped. Bush's idea of diplomacy? Pointing at people and saying 'you are bad guys!' That, and simply refusing to talk to anybody.

Was Bush pursuing stability when ordered the bombing of Fallujah? What about the cluster bombs?

I still don't understand why people cannot "get it" that the American occupation army is the biggest obstacle to stability in Iraq. Since nobody knows exactly that the Americans are going to do, or exactly how long the army is going to stay there, it is difficult for the locals to achieve a stable long-term power structure. And that doesn't even begin to address the question of fairness.

Posted by Whispers | July 3, 2008 9:50 PM

"People on the Hill say he has to get out of there," a senior administration official said.

Bwaa hahahaha.

Posted by asl | July 3, 2008 11:24 PM

Oh, you mean there's oil in Iraq? Really? I hadn't noticed!

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 4, 2008 12:56 AM

Oh, you mean there's oil in Iraq? Really? I hadn't noticed!

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 4, 2008 1:01 AM

Oh, you mean there's oil in Iraq? Really? I hadn't noticed!

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 4, 2008 1:03 AM

God, I hate the comment system on this site.

My apologies for the triple post.

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 4, 2008 1:05 AM

God, I hate the comment system on this site.

My apologies for the triple post.

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 4, 2008 1:06 AM

"Yeah, it does sound odd. I don't think 100 US soldiers dying is worth saving the lives of 150 Iraqis (or Burmese, or Zimbabweans, or whatever), and I'm pretty sure most people agree. That's why it generally isn't our policy to occupy other countries whenever people are dying."

Turn it around. Imagine if Americans were dying and the solution was to have Swedish soldiers occupy a part of the US.

Would you be in favor of this even if it would save American lives?

Posted by Ed | July 4, 2008 6:14 AM

I get what you're saying, rab. Bush really IS acting responsibly, kind of like a child molester who wears a condom.

Posted by Joe Momma | July 4, 2008 7:28 AM

But we had already entered Iraq; at that point I think the U.S. has a responsibility to minimize total rather than just U.S. deaths.

A responsibility and goal that might very well be accomplished by the withdrawal of our troops, At least according to the viewpoint of many members of the set of americans that are of sound mind and not totally addicted to the bush-neocon mindset of war forever

Posted by grandpajohn | July 4, 2008 9:04 AM

Rab is absolutetly correct, the goal is stability in Iraq.

And to pursue that noble goal, our brave commander-in-chief is willing to have our soldiers die in Iraq until the last fucking drop of oil has been pumped out of the ground by his corporate cronies.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that the patriotic American 'Rab' family has just as many kids in uniform over in Iraq as the 'Bush' and 'Cheney' families have.

Posted by Worst. President. Ever. | July 4, 2008 11:46 AM

I find it absolutely astonishing that 5+ years after the invasion of Iraq there is still argument about Bush's motives.

It should have been obvious to a blind man in 2002 that Bush wanted a war and he made damn sure he got one.

The motives are not nearly as important as the consequences, which are - objectively - tragedy in every dimension you can name.

For myself, I don't care if the war was about oil. I care much more - infinitely more - that the damage be put right to the extent that it can be.

And the obvious first step in that is that the U.S. start to withdraw. How this is actually done is of vital importance, because it cannot be done in such a way as to make the situation even worse than it is, but the process has to begin.

Posted by PowerOfX | July 4, 2008 12:38 PM