‘Civil War’ Is Uttered, and White House’s Iraq Strategy Is Dealt a Blow

[ProSense]

August 6, 2006
Washington Memo

‘Civil War’ Is Uttered, and White House’s Iraq Strategy Is Dealt a Blow

By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — Late last year, during a major address in Annapolis, President Bush introduced a new phrase for his Iraq policy: “Plan for Victory.” With those words emblazoned on a screen behind him, he laid out a possible exit path for American troops, who would gradually cede control to their Iraqi counterparts.

But that phrase has all but disappeared as scenes of horrific sectarian violence have streamed onto American television screens unabated. And when the United States commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, addressed the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, his testimony that “Iraq could move towards civil war” if the strife would not end overshadowed any talk of victory.

Snip...

Since the war began more than three years ago, the administration and its supporters have discussed it in terms that have progressively tamped down expectations. The long-derided terms like “greeted as liberators” (Vice President Dick Cheney) and “cakewalk” (former Reagan arms control official Kenneth L. Adelman), as well as talk of an insurgency in its “last throes” (Mr. Cheney), are a thing of memory. Now, mixed with optimism are statements from President Bush that “the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,” and from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States had made “tactical errors, thousands of them.”

Snip...

“ ‘Civil war’ is sort of a proxy term for wars we cannot win,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, a professor of political science at Duke University who has worked on gauging opinions on Iraq with Peter D. Feaver, a fellow Duke professor who took leave to become a special adviser to the White House, helping to hone the “Plan for Victory.”

Snip...

In the current political climate, there is little appetite among voters for an increased troop presence. In the latest New York Times poll, 56 percent said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal; 33 percent said it should do so even if it means handing Iraq over to insurgents.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/washington/06memo.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

It's been a civil war (both real and announced) for some time now.

[Robbien]

1. "Civil War" is uttered and Bush goes on a 10 day vacation

and Lebanon burns.

What an upside down world.

[uppityperson]

2. there is brush that needs cutting, after all.

[grytpype]

3. From the article: the hawks want to send more US troops into Iraq.

Underscoring just how hard the job of putting an optimistic face on the war is proving to be, the staunchest remaining supporters are voicing pessimism about the prospects under the administration’s current approach, increasingly calling for Mr. Bush to engage in a new and more aggressive strategy.

“Those of us who still back the war are worried and alarmed,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, an early proponent of the invasion. “We need to win the war and if it’s not going well we need to change strategy.”

On The National Review Online Web site last week, a former speechwriter for President Bush, David Frum, another longtime supporter of the war, said that if the United States did not change its policy by significantly increasing troop levels, “Baghdad — and therefore central Iraq — will in such a case slide after Basra and the south into the unofficial new Iranian empire.” Then, he predicted, “American troops will be free to stay or go, depending on whether we wish to deny or acknowledge defeat.”

They're right in a sense, the only way to win the war now is to send in a huge influx of US troops -- 200,000 more would probably not be enough, it would take much more than that.

But that will never happen. There's no public support for it and we don't have the troops anyway.

If Bush had been serious about winning the war, he would have had to triple the size of the Army. He would have had to resort to conscription at least six months before the invasion.

[krkaufman]

6. Exactly. The war would never had happened ...

... had BushCheneyRumsfeld actually put together a plan that could win, because it would have taken a lot longer to prepare -- giving the American people time to catch-up to the news that the case for war was bogus.

[NCarolinawoman]

7. William Kristol, take your sorry ass to Bagdag and fight the "terrists".

You say we need more troops? Have Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and Dimson join you. Wow! I almost forgot about Leiberman. He better go over there as well. Maybe he and Rummy can share a ride in a Humvee, with Limpballs and Hannity riding shotgun.

That will contribute at least eight more to the troup numbers. :grr:

[marmar]

4. It's all gone wrong, hasn't it?

I honestly hope we can recover from this mess - militarily, economically, diplomatically, morally it's been a complete and total disaster.
:cry:

[pansypoo53219]

5. wait a minute,

they had a strategy?
are you sure? i thought they were doing the underpants gnome theory.