Wed, April 25, 2007
Don Veto
It's no secret that I don't like President Bush, but I've pretty much quit bitching about it because bitching about it isn't going to do any good. For the most part, I've resigned myself to our widely differing opinions about the best way to conduct world affairs. However, this troop funding bill business throws me for a loop, because his behavior seems completely unreasonable. Usually, even if I strongly disagree with him, I can kind of figure out why he does things; in this case, his actions don't even make sense from his own perspective.
I can figure out why he opposes a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, even if I strenuously object to his reasoning. On the one hand, he's right: it does seem senseless to announce a withdrawal date because insurgents, terrorists, what-have-you can just recede into their caves until that date and then return in full force. But that pretends those people have any intent to recede. As it is, they're not being held significantly in check by the presence of our forces. They seem capable of "waiting it out" with or without a specific end date. Remaining in Iraq until terrorists and insurgents simply give up and go away is preposterously unrealistic. What Bush is actually waiting for is everyday Iraqis embracing democracy and demanding their government provide for their security – a process which might be helped along by a deadline.
Also, there's really no way to withdraw without a timetable. You might not announce a specific set of dates, but once people notice you rolling up your tents, they're going to put it together. A surprise overnight exit is impossible – and, by the president's logic, the evildoers would swarm into power right after that, anyway. The only way to prevail over the hypothetical terrorists-in-waiting from the timetable scenario is to stay in Iraq forever. Literally forever, which is untenable from a military personnel standpoint and a budgetary standpoint – not to mention, the American people just won't stand for it. The only thing President Bush can do is delay until January 2009, which accomplishes nothing except allowing him to say, "we didn't lose Iraq on my watch," which is a meaningless and petty political point. Petty political points have their place, but when they cost hundreds of American lives, that's pretty reprehensible.
So, from the military, strategic, fiscal, and political perspectives, it seems that a withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable. We can bicker about the when, but it's sure to happen the next 2-3 years. This is where things become unreasonable, and I'll need to illustrate this with an Amazing Race analogy.
This past week, Danny and Oswald* found themselves in the lead, going into a situation where the Yield was in play. They were also dangerously low on cash – a death sentence this late in the race. They stated that in an effort to "play honorably" (bullshit, but that's a different discussion) they would prefer not to use the Yield. Waiting out the Hours Of Operation Tango with my beloved Dustin and Kandice, they arrived at an agreement whereby the girls would give them some cash and the guys would yield Danielle and Eric. This worked out great for everyone, because the guys were able to do something they needed to do anyway, but make it clear that they were forced into it. (With only four teams left, even the first place team would be wise to use the Yield – any advantage could be pivotal now. I'd have yielded Mirna instead; different discussion.)
With this troop funding bill, President Bush has the same excellent opportunity. He knew this was coming – the Democrats' mid-term victory is tied entirely to the issue of withdrawal from Iraq, since they sustained their remarkable lack of vision on every other issue. He knows the withdrawal itself is inevitable (see above). His own personal pride prevents him from admitting he was wrong (take your pick: WMD, Saddam & 9/11, al Qaeda in Iraq, initial troop levels, "Mission Accomplished", surge effectiveness). So here's the perfect chance to do what he knows must be done without admitting any mistakes. His hands are tied; those idiot Democrats forced him to pull the troops out! Vetoing the bill merely delays much-needed funding for the men and women serving in Iraq to score a political point. Publicly threatening on multiple occasions to veto the bill, even more so. Give the Dems credit for nothing else, but they've finally stopped panicking in response to the wildly vacillating definition of "support" for "the troops." Bush and Cheney should quit whipping that horse carcass and just do what has to be done. There will be no shortage of blame for Congressional Democrats if the move fails – what do they have to lose?
Maybe their endgame is to veto the bill and watch Congress override it – then they have even more people to blame if the withdrawal goes wrong. But something tells me Cheney is unlikely to suddenly take a break from strong-arming Congressional Republicans to bend to his will.

Joe Mulder — Wed, 4/25/07 1:47pm
Most of what you say makes sense, but, is withdrawal really inevitable? I mean, in some sense, haven't US forces been in Germany and South Korea "forever"?
I realize that the situations aren't really comparable, I only bring it up because it seems like your starting from the position of "American forces will have to leave Iraq at some point," like it's a given, and you're going from there. I'm not sure it's a given.
(I'm not sure it's not a given; just seemed worth bringing up)
Since you brought them up, I say we just send over Danny, Oswald, Dustin and Kandice. Between the four of them, there's something there that everybody can enjoy.
Bee Boy — Wed, 4/25/07 2:54pm
I know nothing – nothing – about the American military situation in Korea, Germany, or really anywhere, Iraq included. But I think you'd agree that troops stationed in those places are more or less hanging out at this point. Minding the fort. Not dying in numbers that make the papers, not policing and keeping a lid on sectarian bombings and gunplay.
In fact, I would assume that American forces will remain in Iraq indefinitely to do the things they're doing in those places and others around the globe. I don't think anyone denies that – or expects a US pullout to be 100%, leaving zero people remaining. Shifting from their mission as it stands today to a mission like those in South Korea or Germany is, for all intents and purposes, a "withdrawal" – and either that is inevitable or it is inevitable that we start up the draft again.
But like I said, I'm not an expert, just giving you one man's opinion. I'm happy to defer to God, Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Mike" — Wed, 4/25/07 3:03pm
Joe makes a really important point. The U.S. still has troops all over the place, though, as Jameson rightly surmises, these folks are not in any kind of danger as compared to the danger facing troops in Iraq.
Charlie Rose did a fascinating interview with the president last night. Bush has a command of the issues facing the region and the world and a very clear view regarding how to deal with them. I don't agree with his plan, but it is clear and consistent and his responses during the interview suggested to me that he has seriously thought things through to the point that his world view allows.
One question I wish Charlie would've asked, and one that related to Joe and Jameson's conversation, is this: "Let's say that you're right and giving the terrorists a date certain for withdrawl or redeployment or any kind of major troop change just encourages the terrorists to wait until we leave. By that logic, why wouldn't the terrorists just wait anyway? Why not stop all the attacks, make the president think that he's won, have our troops leave/redeploy, and then have all hell break loose?"
It seems to me there is no answer to that question that prevents a questioner from saying, "Well, then you need a better reason than you currently have to oppose withdrawl/redeployment since your opposition rests on the assumption that they'd just wait us out. We need something more substantive."
Bee Boy — Fri, 5/11/07 4:52pm
Jon Stewart did a really great opening bit last night about the president's definition of victory (or defeat) in Iraq, and what it will take for us to get out of this mess on his terms. Obviously, Jon cherry-picks, but Bush still did say those things. I'm more mystified than ever about what his goals are.
Sincerely, I am. Because all I can think of is: a) he wants to stall until the end of his term, so we don't have to "admit defeat" on his watch; or b) he's hoping if he just stays the course, things will coincidentally improve. The first seems unspeakably cruel to the military who will lose their lives while he waits it out; the second seems fantastically farfetched, even for him.
The Charlie Rose interview was fantastic, but it didn't answer my questions. What am I missing?
(By the way, for my money, you can do no better than Reza Aslan for a thoughtful analysis of the current situation and the potential near-term outcomes. Plus, he's bookishly cute and whip smart, with a quick wit – he's like a Persian Ira Glass!)