January 12, 2007
The surge: a way to win while losing
It has been awhile since I’ve heard from Roy, my imaginary friend. But there he was, rounding the door into my office.
“What are you writing about?” he asked.
I told him I wasn’t sure. I’ve been sick for two weeks and gotten to the point where I have more thoughts than feelings.
“You should write about the surge,” Roy said firmly. “Did it ever occur to you that the surge might be more effective against Democrats than insurgents? Halliburton has already won this war. So has Kellogg, Brown & Root. For the powerful corporations that supported the Bush candidacy, Iraq has been a howling success. Now to sell the surge, Bush promises to build up the Army, boost their numbers and appropriations. No more of Rummy’s slimmed-down war machine. We’ll not only get more muscle but a bigger gut besides. More winners.”
Roy’s cynicism occasionally stuns me.
“OK, fair enough,” I said, “but you’re missing the point. What about the actual war – the one we’re fighting on the ground in Iraq? Rightly or wrongly, Bush thinks we can win it. And he doesn’t want to give up now.”
Roy sighed at me as if I were more an idiot than he’d wanted to believe. “Look,” he said. “First, winning in Iraq was saving America from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. But there weren’t any. So Bush could have called an all-clear and come home, but then victory was redefined as creating a democracy in Iraq, which was going to be easy because the locals were going to love us for dumping Saddam. Now, the objective has quietly changed again. The object is not to win in Iraq; it’s not to lose in Iraq – or at least not to appear to lose. Somehow, the Iraqi government has to hold the ball long enough for us to make it to the sidelines. Then we can declare victory and leave. If that doesn’t work, the blame has to be shifted elsewhere. If Bush didn’t lose it, then somebody else has to be responsible. Who might that be?”
“Well,” I said, “a number of commentators are blaming the Iraqis. After all, it is their country. If they’re going to blow each other up and cut their own pipes and power lines, there’s a point where that has to be their choice and their responsibility. You know, free will and all that.”
“Ya, that’s true,” said Roy. “But it’s going to be so much more useful to blame the Democrats. Look: When we come to the next election cycle, the Republicans will say what a lot of Americans will want to hear – especially if they’ve sent a loved one to Iraq. They’ll say victory was within our grasp but we were stabbed in the back by the wimpy liberals in Congress who, at the critical moment, withdrew their support. How will we want to remember this war a few years from now – as a failure? We’re a proud people. No, my friend. We’ll want to believe it was ours to lose. Bush offers a surge, which is another way to say a victory, if we’re willing to do everything we’ve already tried one more time. If the Democrats say no, Bush gets to walk away saying what happens after that is their fault.”
As I said, I haven’t been feeling too hot lately, so I was slow with a come-back. In fact, I had no response at all and just sat there. So Roy finally walked out. At the threshold, he looked back.
“Nobody ever said Bush can’t play politics with his own war. And just because you opposed the war doesn’t mean he won’t blame you when it fails. Just you watch. When the dust settles, this is going to be your fault.”
