Today’s the big day when President George Bush, after weeks of deliberations — coupled with carefully leaked, unnamed source reports that he had already decided — will announce a major “surge” (escalation) of U.S. troops in Iraq.
It’s widely perceived as a last-ditch effort to secure the status quo in Iraq and clean out dangerous pockets of resistance so Iraq’s government can eventually take over completely. How long will it last? A year? Eighteen months? Two years?
But as Bush most assuredly today rehearses and re-rehearses a speech widely seen as the most vital of his career — polls show most Americans flatly oppose his plan, which is mostly supported by the Republican base — two facts seem clear:
(1) The Democratic Party’s leadership has stepped back and looked at the political realities and realizes there are limits to what it can do or should do, if it wants the Democratic Party to remain in the majority.
(2) Bush’s announcement is apparently based on a series of political assumptions. But a recent newspaper piece reveals that some of these assumptions are flawed. If his plan cannot afford many miscalculations, then based on this report it already seems poised for domestic rejection.
Despite defiant comments, the Democrats’ options seem limited. Writes Slate’s John Dickerson:
There are reasons for Democrats to be cautious in challenging the president on Iraq. As Sen. Joe Biden argues, the president has the authority to conduct his war, so why provoke an ugly fight that the Democrats would lose and that would also expose them to easy caricature? Polls show that Democrats do still have to convince the country that they can be stewards of America’s national-security interests. The tepid measure also could fracture the GOP. By promoting the less confrontational nonbinding resolution, Democrats can corral uneasy Republicans like Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, and Richard Lugar, who have said they are against a surge. A bipartisan piece of weak legislation would make more of a public statement than a partisan effort to limit funding.
These arguments will not sit well with the liberal activists who are planning to deluge their Democratic representatives in the coming days with petitions, rallies, and phone calls demanding a strong against the troop increase.
But, the New York Times reports, the Democrats intend to essentially do what the Republicans had tried to do in Congress: use votes to define the President and to force GOPers to make difficult choices:
Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
Basically, the Democrats have little to lose: polls show Americans lopsidedly against the “surge” idea. Even if Bush delivers a boffo speech, it’s unlikely his numbers and the idea for a troop escalation will surge — unless voters lied to pollsters following the 2006 elections on why many of them cast their ballots the way they did. MORE:
Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.
The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
A question then becomes: after his speech will Bush use a new version of the “cut and run” charge and mobilize the GOP’s infonetwork, which includes highly popular party-line rip-n-read talk show hosts?
That remains to be seen. But what does NOT remain to be seen are indications of flawed analysis in the political assumptions underlying the Bush team’s analysis of his clout and how the American public are likely to receive his plan. A L.A. Times piece on Sunday was peppered with red flags. Here are a few:
That might sound paradoxical, but aides say Bush’s willingness to send more troops makes sense based on two beliefs that have long guided his war strategy. The first is that the price of leaving Iraq would be greater than the cost of staying. The second is that the public will accept the burdens of war if convinced that success is still possible.
“Is this a war, or is it not a war?” one official asked, previewing an argument the president is likely to make. “If it is, you have to be willing to sacrifice…. Americans are willing to do that as long as we have a clear strategy that offers a chance of success.”
PROBLEM: Bush’s ability to “sell” based on words has diminished almost to the point of no-return. His credibility is at LBJ and Nixonian levels in the eyes of Democrats, many independents and, it’s increasingly clear, in the view of some Republicans associated with his father’s administration. Just stating “this is a strategy that will bring us victory” or “we can’t afford to lose in Iraq” won’t be enough anymore.
White House officials acknowledge that any surge proposal would meet opposition from critics who say the prospect of success is too low to risk more troops’ lives. But the officials say they believe that most members of the public are still willing to hear Bush out and give him another chance to succeed.
“If you look at the polls, immediately leaving Iraq is not actually a popular option,” one White House aide said. “Everybody figures that anxiety about the war … means ‘get out.’ But public opinion is more complex than that.”
PROBLEM: That statement seems to refer more to wavering members of the Republican base than to many Democrats, independent voters, or non-Bush faction Republicans. There does seem a clear sentiment that it’s time to find a way to wind down the American role and extricate the United States so that Iraq maintains gains already made and can stabilize itself. It’s no longer merely “anxiety” about how the war is going — but a growing feeling in the land that visible and measurable outcomes so far do not justify keeping an endless bank account of American lives and treasure open forever.
If Bush decides to send more troops, he will argue that the deployment is part of a broader change in strategy that offers a new chance of success, aides said.
“A president does have the ability to persuade,” one added.
PROBLEM: Bush’s credibility and his penchant for intense partisan polarization have shrunk his ability to persuade. He needs a big dose of political Viagra.
One official involved in the administration’s policy discussion described it this way: “There are several strategic options to choose from. Do we cut and leave, and attempt to exit gracefully? Do we adjust the current strategy and be patient? Do we keep the current strategy without any adjustment? Or do we try to change the dynamic by increasing the troop levels and changing the strategy?
“Given an ample supply of patience on the part of the American people, [the current strategy] would work. However, the president now knows that there’s not an ample supply of patience on the part of the American people…. So he has to change the dynamic…. Does he do it by reducing troops and withdrawing, or does he change the mix in a different way?”
PROBLEM: This quote underscores how Bush’s announcement may merely be the prelude to more polarization. “Cut and leave” is a new version of the code phrase “cut and run” that was a code phrase for “cowardice.” If they’re still using that, Bush’s plan will garner little NEW support except from those talk-show radio hosts who were invited to the White House during the 2006 election campaign. You can’t engage someone in a serious policy discussion while insinuating they’re cowards.
ANOTHER PROBLEM: How do continuous polls showing public impatience and plummeting support translate into meaning that you combat the impatience and lack of support by raising troop levels?
If the Bush plan is to work, it’ll have to have (a) quick, visible results in stabilizing the country, (b) support from more than Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and conservative bloggers. Support is gained by debate over POLICY AND POINTS; not by going after those who oppose the plan. It’ll be gained by persuading people to enter the intellectual tent. Will the modus operandi be different this time — or will support for the plan mean (again) going after those who oppose it?
Aides said that if Bush opted for a surge of troops, it should not surprise anyone who paid attention to his public statements about Iraq.
“Victory in Iraq is achievable,” the president told reporters two weeks ago. “It hasn’t happened nearly as quickly as I hoped…. A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.”
There’s nothing wrong with that quote, even if people disgree with it. It’s talking about how Bush perceives the stakes and the national interest. It’s a debate upon which people can expand.
If after the speech tonight the selling of the plan turns into going after and discrediting those who question it, then Bush will likely be political toast, and increasingly ineffective on other fronts since poll numbers do translate into political clout. Even an all powerful executive branch needs political support in Congress and among a sizeable chunk of the American public.
But if this quote from White House press secretary Tony Snow is a harbinger, then it suggests the White House strategy may be to push the polarization and demonization buttons:
As for Democrats, Mr. Snow said they must choose: “Number one, do you want Iraq to succeed? And if so, what does that mean? And number two, do you believe in supporting the troops, as you say, and how do you express that support?�
So if Democrats deviate from the administration’s wishes, they want the war in Iraq to fail and don’t support the troops?
Stay tuned……
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.