I was listening to the weekly Shields and Brooks segment on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer last Friday evening, and heard a disturbing theory. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields said he'd heard rumblings that the Bush Administration has a specific political reason for continuing to push the troop surge in Iraq. The story goes like this:
There are two facts out there. First, it is certain that the troop levels in Iraq will drop dramatically by next spring. This will not be due to any political decision, but will be a foregone conclusion because the manpower to maintain troop levels past that point simply does not exist. Even with the multiple rotations and hardships the Administration has forced on our active duty and reserve soldiers, we have reached the end of our rope. The numbers simply aren't there. The Army is broken. (Heaven help us if we need troops elsewhere in the world the next few years!)
Second, the Administration is convinced that Iraq will explode into complete mayhem when we leave.
So, according to Shields, here's the plan. The Administration will keep pushing for high levels of troops in Iraq, even though they know maintaining these levels is impossible past spring. Then, when they are forced for logistical reasons to pull them out, they will do so, and blame the pullout on the Democrats. When the Iraq blows up (right before the 2008 election), the Republicans will say, "We told you so. We were just on the threshold of victory, but the Democrats forced us to cut and run - and they've lost the war for America and wasted the sacrifice of our soldiers", thereby foisting the blame for the worst foreign policy disaster in American history onto the Democrats.
Think Mark Shields is being paranoid? Then explain why, after four years of scrupulously avoiding any parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, President Bush last week abruptly changed course and is now openly comparing Iraq and Vietnam, calling attention to the chaos in Vietnam when American troops pulled out. I've certainly heard more outrageous political rhetoric come out of Sean Hannity's mouth than this would be, if it came to pass. The story certainly has a Rovian flavor to it.
I think Democratic leaders better be a little more vigilant on this subject. We need to make sure the Republicans and the Administration are held responsible for this fiasco. They can't be allowed to weasel their way out of this one.
4 comments:
We need to stay the course -
I do believe that this is the Republican strategy. Bush has even made statements that to the effect that, "if we had just stayed longer in Vietnam, we would have won that war."
The Bush Presidency is all about politics and given the mess they are in, this is the only plausible exit strategy they have, is to somehow blame Democrats for the Iraq fiasco.
Unfortunately for Republicans, the American people have become alot more savvy in evaluating Republican propaganda. The credibility of their "Republican noise machine" has been seriously undermined and only the real true followers will follow the logic that Bush/Rove are hoping will save the day for the Republicans.
Steve,
I like your Mormon butt. Wish you got a better shake against Bishop. Unless you've got some men's room shenanigans in your closet, you're still the best example around here that a God-fearing, buttoned-up, straight-laced Ned Flanders can legitimately carry the torch for progressive politics. Run again--for something. Full disclosure: I'm neither god-fearing, buttoned-up nor straight-laced.
Peace and Serenity,
Shane
If the Repubs are going to use the "I told you so", then they to listen to the Democratic leaders and historians. When Bush invaded Iraq, they said the war would lead to a civil war.
For the past two years, they have been telling the Repubs, "We told you so".
Post a Comment