Bush not to announce Iraq plan until next year
Why has the White House changed its mind to now announce the "new" Iraq plan until after the New Year?
Is it simply procedural, to allow more lower level planning as the White House claims? Is it PR/politics, to allow the debate to reset away from the ISG report? Or is there more merit to the story of a planned ouster of Maliki than previously thought?
My bet is on the politics, but there is the overwhelming coincidence that this was announced on the same day the second alleged coup plotter, Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi was in the White House meeting with Bush.
I'm quite sure Maliki didn't miss that.
(Oh, and I do hope this delay allows Bush to enjoy a peaceful family Christmas looking across the table at his military aged daughters.)
Later: According to Tony Snow, the reason for the delay is that people came into those meetings with answers, Bush didn't like those answers, and he sent them back out to find answers that are "satisfactory to him."
So, he's not listening, is he? He's tasking.
Snow also went to great lengths to express support for Maliki.
One More: John King on CNN said the delay was for Bush to find a way to get 20,000 more troops into Baghdad, and the the "after Christmas" was indeed politics to get distance from the ISG report.
Is it simply procedural, to allow more lower level planning as the White House claims? Is it PR/politics, to allow the debate to reset away from the ISG report? Or is there more merit to the story of a planned ouster of Maliki than previously thought?
My bet is on the politics, but there is the overwhelming coincidence that this was announced on the same day the second alleged coup plotter, Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi was in the White House meeting with Bush.
I'm quite sure Maliki didn't miss that.
(Oh, and I do hope this delay allows Bush to enjoy a peaceful family Christmas looking across the table at his military aged daughters.)
Later: According to Tony Snow, the reason for the delay is that people came into those meetings with answers, Bush didn't like those answers, and he sent them back out to find answers that are "satisfactory to him."
Tony Snow: The Baker-Hamilton commission certainly looked at it, and the President appreciates their efforts. But it's important for the President to go ahead and to continue to task people who work for him to continue asking tough questions and seeking answers that are satisfactory to him......
(later) MR. SNOW: There was some discussion of the realities on the ground, and it was more of the President posing the what if X, please tell me, get back to me.
So, he's not listening, is he? He's tasking.
Snow also went to great lengths to express support for Maliki.
One More: John King on CNN said the delay was for Bush to find a way to get 20,000 more troops into Baghdad, and the the "after Christmas" was indeed politics to get distance from the ISG report.
posted by mikevotes at
11:14 AM
7 Comments:
I hadn't seen that one. There are so many.
For all the talk of Slick Willie, he really does get a free ride on these. Imagine if Kerry had said that....
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:43 PM
They are always motivated by pr/politics. Then they conduct themselves very poorly.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 3:12 PM
I've said this a thousand times, but soldiers are dying, patriotic Americans, are dying while they delay for politics.
This whole "review the Iraq strategy" should have been done much earlier, but like the Rumsfeld firing, were held back out of election concerns.
There is no greater crime of a leader than to spill blood for his own political standing.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:20 PM
This is probably my biggest grievance with the Iraq Study Group. They published 190 odd pages on how urgent the situation in Iraq is, but then took nine months to complete it, deciding to release it after elections so not to seem politically opportune. Meanwhile, thousands of Iraqi civilians and US soldiers alike, have died. Furthermore, had the ISG released its report earlier it is likely that this administration would have been forced to review their own Iraq strategy at that time. They may not have even been given the chance to wait until after the elections.
By
Matteo Tomasini, at 3:39 PM
Fully agreed.
And, let me add, that if these steps had been taken in June, July, August, they might have had a far better chance at working. I don't know if they would have, but before Forward Together, the Iraqis still had some hope. After seeing the US unable to stop the violence in Baghdad when that was their sole focus, the Iraqis no longer believe in anything the US is doing.
When the choice comes up to side with the militias or the US for protection, they are now choosing the militias whereas before, there were still some Iraqis who thought the US could bring their safety.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:46 PM
Militias not only provide security, but in many circumstances -and this is especially true with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City- they also provide for the basic needs of Iraqis. At this moment, many Iraqis would not even be able to survive without these miltias. It is no wonder that they are so popular.
By
Matteo Tomasini, at 8:41 AM
Yeah, they've been increasingly accepting the Hezbullah model of social services.
But, in the Hezbullah case, the social services side really developed as a way for them to maintain their influence and good opinion during the non conflict periods.
I'm sure people are thankful for Mahdi's social services and I'm sure it has moderate influence in their popularity as they provide critical services the government simply cannot at this point, delivering medicines, arranging housing for the "displaced."
The social services part of the operation is the influence that keeps them with Mahdi, though. It's a second leg of support to security in case SCIRI or some other group (the government?) stands up to offer protection.
Just my opinion.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home