In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.
Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.
Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.
In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.
Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.
Some people will say anything for their Worst Person in the World Award.
Related: Democrats Accused of Lack of Nuance
It was evil ol’ Dick Cheney who forced the Generals (namely Schwartzkopf) to do the end-run during Gulf I, rather than their standard “hey-diddle-diddle, straight up the middle” – leading to a quick victory with very few casualties (on our side) and over 60,000 surrendering Iraqis. The Marines in Kuwait were running around giving the oppo the screaming heebie-jeebies, they didn’t know what the hell was going on or where the Marines would strike next.
So, y’know, I’ve got no problem with Dick.
Brooks, and more importantly, Bush got this one screamingly right.
And Im no fan of either.
well done, Mr. president.
You mean, we won the war? How come no one covered it?
Balls. Oh, it’s close to right, probably closer than we’ll ever see from the NYT, but it’s still full of s*t.
Bullshit. If the 2006 elections had hinged on the Iraq war, we would have left Iraq post-haste in 2007 at the behest of the Pelosi/Reid/moonbat “Democratic majority”</sneer> Practically all the new Democratic Representatives elected in place of Republicans were conservatives — “Blue Dogs” — from conservative districts who hadn’t changed their basic philosophy but had become disgusted with Republicans, as much because they wouldn’t support Bush and the war as for any other reason.
And what is totally missing in practically every such analysis is the typical history-begins-now asshattedness of The Press. The fact is that the surge didn’t “work” in the sense it’s being trumpeted. What’s working is the Awakening(s) and the gradual achievement of competence by the Iraqi security forces, both police and army, plus what looks to me like an epiphany on the part of Maliki (can you say a “Road to Damascus Moment” when he’s already there?).
The Awakening(s) could not and would not have occurred without the experience of the period late 2003 through early 2006. Al Qaeda and the Heroic Iraqi Minutemen</sneer> showed their true colors and came to be despised by everyone from the tribal sheiks down to the very dogs in the streets; that is the content of the Awakening(s). Once that had happened the Iraqis were willing to go with the lesser of two evils, which is us.
During that same period, American soldiers and Marines were breaking their hearts trying to train Iraqis to be an army, not a street-gang. In retrospect, this is the only aspect of the situation I’m truly willing to acknowledge as a mistake based on overoptimism — you do not start with a gang of not-so-toughs who would wilt like delicate flowers in the streets of West LA and turn them into an effective military force overnight. But our guys — Major John among them — persevered, and the timing came out somewhere close to right. When the people of Iraq had had it up to their nostrils with al Qaeda and Heroic Iraqi Minutemen</sneer>, the Iraqi Army and police forces had risen to a level of sufficient competence to take advantage of it.
I will always believe that sometime last fall, Maliki woke up one morning to the realization that if he played his cards right, instead of being a minor sectarian strongman constantly looking over his shoulder he could be an inclusive coalition leader — and that the latter would be more fun and give him more real power. And that, again, happened at the right time. Just at the moment when the sheiks of Anbar (and elsewhere) were showing their shoe-soles to al Qaeda and the IA was ready to operate independently, Maliki was ready to grasp the nettle.
All of which adds up to a total vindication of George W. Bush. The original hands-off strategy was based on the idea that Iraqis would pick up the torch and run with it, and if you think of it in those terms that’s exactly what happened — it just took longer and was more expensive than the original estimates called for, and none of those optimistic estimates came from Bush, if you’ll recall.
This is not to say the Surge was useless, but rather than being the decisive stroke it was more of a catalyst. Forces were growing and becoming better aligned, and the surge served to bring them together and point them all in more or less the same direction, but the fact is that the Iraqis were and are doing the heavy lifting, just as they should — and just as was envisioned and intended from the beginning.
Regards,
Ric
Bush used all his political power on one thing: the war on terror. One day, more than just a handful of us will be thankful for that.
I’m suspecting that history will look much more kindly on GW than today’s pundits. Absent 9-11, Bush likely would have been an amiable, unremarkable one-termer.
I watched Bush assume the presidency in the midst of the rubble that day when he spoke thru the bullhorn, and remain very thankful that once more, this country showed it’s knack of having the right person for the moment, in any given situation.
Great comment, Ric. The fact is, and always has been to those with a shred of awareness, that Iraq wasn’t going to be all better on the heels of our arrival. Take the bootheel that is all they’ve ever known off of the necks of millions at the same time, and there’s inevitably going to be chaos. Add the ethnic tensions, and al-Qaeda stirring the pot, and the timeframe for social coherence gets pushed out significantly. That Iraq is where it is now, assuming it holds, is nothing short of a miracle brought to you by Your United States Military. The world is not just rid of Saddam, we’re rid of Uday and Qusay and those are all Very Good Things. If it holds and it spreads, George Bush is going to go down in history as the Savior of the Middle East.
That ought to stick in a craw or two.
Oh, and the shithole that Iraq was when we started? Brought to you by Saddam Hussein and Your United Nations. I like this Iraq better.
Hey Jeff G., I’m not a frequent poster, but I’m an avid (as in, many times daily) reader. I have to tell you: you not only have some of the best political and philosophical commentary out there on teh Interwebs, but you also have the brightest, and funniest, commenters.
And I could not agree more: history will remember this president kindly. It will probably take decades — but mark my words, it’ll happen. Right man, right place, right time, indeed.
Where the heck is Sashal? Can anyone who lives near him check if he’s OK?
Maybe Sashal’s head exploded, also.
#1 – mojo; I remember the press reports in the build up to the first Gulf War and how good it was to have steady, knowledgable, old hands like Cheney on board. Amazing how things change.
And ‘self-confident’ and ‘stubborn’ – is he describing nearly every president or just Harry Truman?
#4 – Ric Locke: I think the surge was useful because it gave those who were watching the weathervanes in Iraq a sign – the US wasn’t leaving soon. The US, despite internal quarrals (which the Iraqis could relate to), where still there and coming on stronger. That gave the appearance of the strong horse, and provided cover for the backers of that horse.
“They aren’t leaving.”
The difference between Carter and Bush2. When the time came to stand on his hind legs and lead, Bush2 stood. Carter. Not so much.
One day, more than just a handful of us will be thankful for that.
I bet in ten years, 80 million people will be claiming they voted for Pres. Bush.
I bet in ten years, 80 million people will be claiming they voted for Pres. Bush.
And no one, but no one, will confess to have been a supporter of Barack Hussein Obama.
Arrgh: “confess to having been.” My grammar sucks today.
“And what is totally missing in practically every such analysis is the typical history-begins-now asshattedness of The Press. The fact is that the surge didn’t “work†in the sense it’s being trumpeted. What’s working is the Awakening(s) and the gradual achievement of competence by the Iraqi security forces, both police and army, plus what looks to me like an epiphany on the part of Maliki (can you say a “Road to Damascus Moment†when he’s already there…” Ric Locke
Ric Locke
I agree with most of what you say but I think you aren’t giving the Surge enough credit. An astute observer (me) argued in numerous posts almost a year ago that the situation in Iraq was quickly changing because of a combination of three things: the Anbar Awakening, the development of the IA and the Surge. The COIN operation in Bahgdad would not have been possible without all three factors and the significant and successful offensive undertaken against al Qaeda would not have been possible either.
John McCain is wrong when he claims that the Surge by itself turned everthing around and his clueless opponent is so out of touch that he thinks the Anbar Awakening occured after the November 2006 election despite the fact the Christian Science Monitor was reporting on it as early as February 2006 and Bill Roggio reported in 2005 that Sunni brigades were fighting al Qaeda.
The great uuntold stories of the Iraq war are the devastation of al Qaeda and not only at the hands American forces but Iraqis – Sunni and Shia, alike.
George Bush might well emerge as the most transformative President for good since Lincoln but unless he starts to appreciate the importance of an effective communications strategy his good works will be overcome and set aside by the 98 pound weakling who will succeed him if America doesn’t soon wake up.
but unless he starts to appreciate the importance of an effective communications strategy
He has an effective communications strategy, it’s one of the oldest.
Actions speak louder than words.
It is only effective in retrospect however.
“Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right”
A number of trite expressions (the only kind conservatives can grasp) come to mind…..
“It’s the exception which proves the rule…”
Even a blind pig finds the occasional truffle….
Alphonse Capone was popular at Christmas when he handed out turkeys…
Goebbels was an excellent father…..
Dude, Cleao — where’ve you been? The trolls around here lately have sucked even more than you!
Actions speak louder tha words is effective only if people are aware of the effect of the actions.
As a result of their insane tactics in Iraq and American and Iraqi response to those tactics, al Qaeda in Iraq has been devastated and their reputation throughout the Muslim world significantly diminished.
The Democrat supporting MSM isn’t going to tell this story. If Bush doesn’t tell it the American public will remain largely unaware of these developments.
…Semanticleo being a case in point.
Fake turkeys?
Terry – I honestly don’t know how you can get around this. If the MSM refuses to tell the stories … if Hollywood won’t make the movies, etc, then the “story” simply won’t get out.
Shit, people watch that Steven Colbert show and think they’re gleaning information. If it isn’t covered on the “View”, it didn’t happen. I think Bush could tell the story … even if he articulated it well – it’s like a tree in the empty forest.
The media (and it’s cohorts in HOllywood) simply have too much power.
Terry Gain (#19) —
Yes, I thoroughly agree. All three factors were necessary; my point is that we here on the Right see altogether too many effusions to the effect that “The Surge is Working!” as if the presence of American troops were the only factor. That isn’t the case.
As for an effective communications strategy, when the entire Press Establishment is determined that your message will not be heard — when they won’t even report what you say, but rather spend hours selecting only the most damaging excerpts to sound-bite — it’s a little hard to establish such a thing.
Semanticleo —
George Bush was right when he decided that endless rounds of whack-a-mole, lawyers vs. terrorists, would accomplish nothing whatever, would continue to have negative consequences from our point of view, and needed to be replaced by something else;
George Bush was right when he concluded that the best and most efficient place to do something else was Iraq, where we could simultaneously remove a nasty, vicious dictator whose continued presence inspired and emboldened others and offer an opportunity for one of the most nearly cosmopolitan polities in the Middle East to build something better;
George Bush was right when he ordered that after the initial invasion, American troops would stay out of it as much as possible and let the situation develop;
George Bush was right when he determined that the situation had developed sufficiently that a slight reinforcement of numbers combined with a major change in strategy would yield large effects.
George Bush’s original estimate of how long it would take was ten years. It’s only been five, and substantial progress is being made. In fact, the only “mistake” I’m willing to lay at his feet is the Pollyannaish assumption that at least some of the supposed brown-people-loving, liberal Left would think that removing a genocidal dictator was at least in some respects a good thing. Instead you and your cohorts have deified Saddam and his bloody-handed thugs, cheered every murder Zarqawi and company carried out, and totally disappeared the hundreds of thousands of victims of mass murder, torture, and genocide in favor of demonizing Marines who had the temerity to shoot back at their attackers — and claimed the Moral High Ground™ for it. I’ve never quite figured out how it is that people anxious to fling the “chickenhawk” argument at war supporters couldn’t bring themselves to go over and murder a few poor Shi’ia in support of the Minute Men of Iraq. Never mind; the people you eulogized did quite a good job, so you needn’t get your hands dirty.
Regards,
Ric
Actions speak louder tha words is effective only if people are aware of the effect of the actions.
True, unless your actions are meant to take care of the country and not yourself.
I know, I know, Bushes inability to champion what he has done my cause the next president to undo it without garnering criticism. He has tried, and I think achieved falling tree in the forest status.
[…] I should have noted that the “surge” was not all that popular at the time, either. Posted by Karl @ 5:51 pm | Trackback […]
KILL the chicken, let the monkey WATCH.