With reports today that a record number of U.S. troops have died in the past three months, President Bush is about to find out how low is low.
His approval ratings at rock bottom, increasing dissent and outright hostility from his own Republican party, and a persistently frustrating Iraq war with no visible, practical resolution, the world’s most powerful man may finally be feeling a little weak at the knee.
Several years ago, as Bush campaigned for his second term, Americans began to doubt the wisdom of the Iraq war. Bush succeeded in getting re-elected on what could arguably be considered a politician’s most successful campaign message in history: “We must stay the course.”
But every suicide bomb, every American casualty, every insurgent blast has chipped away at the veneer of Bush’s sleek and highly polished sales message; until today, that message no longer brings in the eager customers. And the ones it did originally persuade have a strong feeling that they’ve been duped.
In the classic Arthur Miller play, Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman is an aging salesman who pursues wealth and success without regard for principle. Close to retirement, he begins to lose his grip on reality, unwilling to accept the devastating fact that his life has been an absolute, utter failure.
In President Bush’s version of the play, his relentless and obstinate pursuit of success for his Iraq war policy – without regards to the tremendous cost in human lives and weakening of American foreign relations – has left his presidential legacy in shambles.
Bush now acts like a man who has lost all touch with reality. He insists that we are winning in Iraq – just not as fast as we would like. But the facts are that we are not winning. We’re plunging deeper and deeper into an inescapable black hole of failure. He insists that our friends and allies are still behind us. Yet the facts are that even Great Britain – our biggest, most staunch supporter – has slowly begun to distant itself from us.
Bush continues to act like the Sole Decider on every policy coming out of the Democratically controlled houses, and assumes his Republican colleagues will maintain their blind loyalty to the party – and fall in line with his decisions. Yet the facts are that Republicans are increasingly severing their ties to him, making it clear to the American people that they do not unilaterally share his views on all the issues as they once did.
As reality sinks in that the only result of the Iraq troop surge is a surge in casualties, Bush’s unique exclamation that he is the “sole decider” on all things Iraq may prove ironic.
He is quickly becoming a party of one.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
1. As we increase offensive operations with the surge, more troops come into contact with the enemy. That is why there is an increase in casualties. It goes with the turf when you conduct offensive operations. When looked at as a proportion of deployed troops, however, the rate has actually gone down since the beginning of the surge. There was an increase in casualties, but it was not proportional to the increase in soldiers.
2. Congress's approval rating is lower than the president's.
I joint wanted to provide another point of view.
I have two points about the surge. The first is that the president is right that you cannot have diplomatic progress without security. That is the purpose of the surge. It is designed to provide an environment secure enough for the Iraqi parties to come together and work out a deal. Which brings me to my second point. The strategy is a good one because a large number of American troops can provide a relatively secure environment for a short period of time (not a safe environment, because all attacks will not cease unless the fighting parties reach an agreement).
We're seeing some signs of progress, but the key point to keep in mind is that the surge didn't begin in January, it began last week when the final troops arrived and we launched Operation Phantom Thunder (see Small Wars Journal blog entries by David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgent adviser for Multi-National Force-Iraq. He's a former Australian officer now advising Petraeus about counterinsurgency operations).
The problem is, and this is my second point, I don't believe the Iraqis have the desire to work out their problems in the near future. So we are attempting to provide the breathing space, but they will not take advantage of it. The Iraqis have always been the key to the surge, and I believe they will fail us. But that doesn't make the strategy a bad one. It makes it one dependent on other parties, which involves a certain degree of risk. But given the way things were going in Iraq, the risk was not unwarrented.
That's actually the good news. The bad news is there's plenty more sales pitches where the big lies on Iraq came from -- and plenty more sleazy salesmen to pitch them, and pitch them. Listen to the words!
War is the worst of all the crimes humanity can commit against each other. The idea that we, the United States of America, by CHOICE marched off to war is repugnant to me. The men responsible for this obscenity will burn in Hell.
That said, I don't expect it to work. It's too little too late. But the president is commander in chief and he has the authority to execute the strategy if the congress gives him the money, which they did. Now it's time to watch it play out, win or lose.
Missy, I am not a liar nor a salesman for the effort in Iraq. I'm an active duty soldier who has already served two tours there. There is no incentive for me to tell anything but the truth as I see it from my experiences there. Advocating our continued presence in Iraq could mean a third tour for me, wounding or death. Therefore, I do not take this issue lightly or blindly follow the president.
And as for the casualties, those guys and gals are my friends and peers. I know several who have lost their lives and more who have been wounded. But proportionally, as a percentage of troops deployed, the casualty rate has gone down over the past few months. Looking at raw numbers does not portray an accurate picture. It's simple to say the numbers are higher, but that's missing the point.
This is from Small Wars Journal Blog, a post by David Kilcullen, a former Australian officer who is the senior counterinsurgency adviser to General Petraeus. He addresses the casualty rate in this post, and I think it's worth the read (unless you automatically consider him to be lying as well--it's one hell of a conspiracy we've got going here).
"Every single loss is a tragedy. But so far, thank God, the loss rate has not been too terrible: casualties are up in absolute terms, but down as a proportion of troops deployed (in the fourth quarter of 2006 we had about 100,000 troops in country and casualties averaged 90 deaths a month; now we have almost 160,000 troops in country but deaths are under 120 per month, much less than a proportionate increase, which would have been around 150 a month). And last year we patrolled rarely, mainly in vehicles, and got hit almost every time we went out. Now we patrol all the time, on foot, by day and night with Iraqi units normally present as partners, and the chances of getting hit are much lower on each patrol. We are finally coming out of the "defensive crouch" with which we used to approach the environment, and it is starting to pay off. "
As I said, I have a very personal stake in this. I will not sugar coat nor lie to make things seem rosy if I believe they are not. And, they are not, as I have said multiple times. But that doesn't change the fact that the president has the constitutional authority to carry out his strategy and that it is nonsense to declare the surge a failure before it is even fully underway. You want to debate likelihood of success, fine. That's fair game and something that should be debated. But to call it a failure before it has really started is defeatist.
Meanwhile Greg said: "...there is an increase in casualties. It goes with the turf when you conduct offensive operations. ..."
Yup these are indeed the most offensive operations in the most offensive war in history.
The radio including NPR are full of "Bagdad is safer" news. But they don't mention, or rarely mention, that Iraqi citizens (remember them) poll as feeling much less safe. Of course, with the increased offensive actions going on, they are more offended. And I wonder if the problems aren't just moving out of Bagdad into other regions like Fallugia.
Yes, Carol if I was not 67 and chronically ill I would apply to immigrate to NZ. But I have nothing to offer them, and my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are stuggling here, I can't abandon them. I'd love to live out from under corporate rule for the rest of my life. I'd like to see how a parlamentary form of government might be inclusive rather than exclusive. And I'd like to live among people who are not small-minded, gripped in fear, and out for number one. I'd like to live where a social safety net is recognized for the essential part of life that it is.
Don't get the idea that I support any of the so called Democrats except the one who can't win but should. I agree, they all stink, because they come to Washington DC with a box of bandaids and a collection basket. We need statespersons with the courage to save our Constitution, not same ole, same ole self-serving politicians.
Let me state for the record that just ONE LOSS...is ONE TOO MANY!!
As someone who does have a son-in-law there on his 3rd tour....I can tell you that the shiite's and the sunni's were fighting long before Bush decided he wanted to invade Iraq, they continue to fight with our troops in Iraq and will continue long after someone in this country has the God given sense to bring our troops home to their families who love them and want them here!
eral funding for stem cell research or setting a time table for withdrawins troops fron Iraq the republicans vote enough in the minority to not allow a cloture free majority. If left to the democrats who are just following the will of the people the
approval rating would be much higher
Can you believe how two-faced his conservative "base" is proving itself to be? Why I just heard (from Tim Russert) that 78% of REPUBLICANS in Iowa are in favor of pulling our troops out of Iraq within 6 months. What turncoats!
And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Mario, that Du(m)bya is NOT losing touch with reality. He never was in touch with it to start with.
I hope that the Democratic majority in Congress--without whose complicity George and Dick would not have had the financial wherewithall to perpetuate this fraudulent and futile war--re paying attention to that little news item you mentioned--the one about THE RECORD NUMBER OF U.S. TROOPS HAVING DIED IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS. They'll undoubtedly start doing their impressions of Lady Macbeth's obsessive-compulsive hand-washing routine any time now, but they are going to discover that the blood of America's best and bravest young men and women is awfully damned hard to get rid of.
I'm still waiting, with bated breath, for the "emergency" that delays the general election in '08 - or stops it altogether.
The adventure is a unjustifable debacle on any basis. It is a callous use of American blood and treasure to corner vast oil reserves for the benifit of Bush/Cheney oligarchs. There can be no resolution of this conflict without reckoning with its cause.
In terms of ending the occupation and bringing the troops home, I thought McGovern's plan made a fair amount of sense. A big part of his. plan involved the US paying what amounts to war reparations, which seems fair, although I don't agree with his call for special loans to help Iraqi citizens rebuild or repair their homes and businesses.
Something just doesn't seem right about blowing up a person's house and then making money from interest on money you loan them to build it back.
Sam C. and Wil B. sum it all up very succinctly. While craven and greedy members of congress on both sides of the aisle [and we know who they all are] wring hands in despair that the Iraqi's just aren't up for western style democracy, we the american electorate are paying and paying and paying for the lessons they just don't seem able to grasp. I daresay they will eventually see the light, even if we taxpayers don't, just in time for elections and/or about the time that the oil contracts are divvied up. NOT that it's ALL about the oil. It was never all about the oil. It was always about 'control' and short term gains -- which will conveniently turn out to be a long time in the making.
2008 will come and I'm inclined to agree with Jeanie B. that some catastrophic event will occur -- just in time. Let the election chips fall where they may. There will be bloodletting on both sides.
Holy shit, Batfart, how deluded can you get?
This "humanitarian intervention" has resulted in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and turning millions more into refugees, initiating an intractable sectarian civil war, creating a national state of chaos and de-stabilizing the entire Middle East.
And, oh, yes, the surge is producing tangilbe results all right--ONLY fifty dead Iraqis were collected by the Iraqi Corpse Collection Corps yesterday. Whoppee! (Meanwhile FIVE more American troops died on the first day of the month of July--yet another Black-Letter Day for Bush et al.)
"Civilian Deaths in Iraq Down 36 Percent "
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070702/D8Q461PO0.html
Paul,
I was going to say that, but frankly I was searching and searching and just didn't come up with the word 'bat fart'! Leads to bats--t on the brain -- I'll have to remember that the next time I get upset with orwellian-speak.
This part is just too good to let go. You said: "Yet the facts are that Republicans are increasingly severing their ties to him, making it clear to the American people that they do not unilaterally share his views on all the issues as they once did."
Yes, they are severing ties and making "vote deals" right, left and center -- hoping the we'll ALL forget who put him there and who ramrodded through all the crappy legislation so blatantly tailored to the liking of all kinds of corporate special interests with deep pockets and totally contrary to the best interests of 'we the regular people.' Imagine the trade-offs on immigration and Scooter's pardon?