USAToday on Bush's Iraq: Blind optimism>denial> acceptance>recalibration

[bigtree]

As Iraq votes, a new tone from the White House

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051216/cm_usatoday/asiraqvotesanewtonefromthewhitehouse

U.S. policy in Iraq - or at least the explanation of it - has followed a wandering path since the invasion 1,000 days ago: First came blind optimism, symbolized by the premature "Mission Accomplished" ceremony in 2003. Then, as the insurgency deepened, U.S. casualties mounted and the reasons for going to war were discredited, President Bush tried to avoid or change the subject.

When that didn't work, Bush and other administration officials tried denial, insisting that everything was going according to plan. The resulting gap between reality and rosy portrayal eroded public support for the war and Bush's approval rating.

Now comes a recalibration. In the days leading to Thursday's assembly elections in Iraq, Bush delivered four speeches about the war that reflected a marked change in tone, though not in overall strategy.

>>>>Bush vowed not to leave until "complete victory" has been achieved. His frequent use of the word victory, according to several news reports, was because of polling showing that it plays well with the public. But he defined victory in fluid enough terms that it could be when democracy has taken hold, when Iraqi forces take over, or when terrorist leaders are captured or killed.

Whoever wrote this needs to be just a hair more cynical about the aims Bush with regard to troop withdrawal. There will undoubtedly be a relief of units which are overdue and those that were brought in in anticipation of the election. But, the writer may have been too optimistic that Bush wants our soldiers out of Iraq. There is his vow to end the insurgency, and his promise of "total victory", not just generally, but a specific vow to defeat the 'terrorists'. I foresee a stripped down force with the same mandate that the larger on had and couldn't manage well enough to avoid the killing of 30,000 Iraqis. There is still the business of intimidating and possibly invading Iran or Syria, and Bush is said to want a base(s) of operations in Iraq for more military meddling against other countries in the region and beyond. And there is the oil.

I hope, for the sake of the troops, that Bush's bluster about victory is, as the writer says, fancy rhetoric. But, I am concerned that we may be taking on some smoke from the White House as they hunker down for a long military stay behind surrogate rhetoric about withdrawal. And, there is the issue of lessons learned. We must not let Bush label any part of his Iraq misadventure as any measure of a success. I don't want to hear this administration or any future one use any part of this blundering imperialism as an example or doctrine for conflicts and confrontations down the road.

[panader0]

1. I disagree with *'s casualty figures for Iraqis

I read over a year ago that there were at least 100,000 Iraqi dead, many of them women and children, or "collateral damage" as Rummy says.

[bigtree]

2. I'm with you on that

Yet, on the other hand, I heard another Iraqi tracker put the figure just under thirty thousand . . . so . . . I don't know. These are, of course, reported deaths that are collected by these sources, verifiable incidents with some immediate corroboration to give weight to the account. That doesn't mean that more deaths haven't occured, it's just that there is the burden of accountability.

You are absolutely on target with your description of women and children killed, many in the way of our indiscriminate cluster bombs, anti-insurgent bombings, search and destroy missions to draw out violent resistance, and defensive killings by our nervous troops. These are amazingly ignored by the Pentagon and the White House in their arrogant portrayal of those killed in their missions as "insurgents", not mentioning the age or gender of the dead and maimed.