“I believe that we’re going to win, I believe that...My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we’re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted.” The President of the United States said this yesterday. Mr. President, I’m curious: What does “success” look like? Does it look like this?
Possibly this? Wait, I’ll bet you mean this. This administration’s corruption of language is a perverse amalgamation of George Orwell and Dr. Pangloss: Not only is failure success, it’s all part of “the calling of our generation.” It’s what you’d expect from a man so sated with delusion that he compares himself to George Washington. (You don’t believe me? Click here and scroll to the last paragraph.)
In Bushspeak, the success of failure involves working with the Iraqi government to “marginalize the radical [sic] and extremists.” Never mind that these so-called “enemies of liberty” are embedded in this very government. Never mind that it is Americans barricaded in the Green Zone who are becoming marginalized. Never mind that the invasion and occupation has reaped a tribal and sectarian whirlwind that is out of control. These are more signs of success, I guess.
So, the president goes about his sham of gathering input and “listening,” a process that has all the credibility of a Stalin show trial. This is how he responds to the “accountability moment” of the last election: Feign concern, dissemble, and then do exactly as he wants. Because his goal hasn’t changed: "...a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror." And after six years, Americans know enough about this man to know that the one thing we won’t get is candor. He doesn’t know what the word means.
Meanwhile, in a deranged euphemism (that, appallingly, may be taking hold), Chuckles Krauthammer recommends “doubling down” American troop strength in Baghdad with the aim of “suppressing” the Mahdi Army. Never one to quit on a military strategy, he appears to think that U.S. soldiers will engage the enemy in pitched battle outside the gates of the city and emerge triumphant. By employing a blackjack tactic to describe warfare, Krauthammer turns street fighting into a night in Vegas.
What are the problems with his notion? Let me count the ways... First, the military is profoundly unenthusiastic, pointing out that whatever short term gains are realized (he doesn’t even consider the possibility of “suppressing” the Mahdi Army) will be negated by increased Iraqi resentment toward their occupiers. Second, as I recently heard a retired general point out, the military is not trained for counterinsurgency. Adding troops readied for conventional war would be like sending a policeman to put out a fire: He’ll mean well, but it’s not what he’s good at. Finally, Krauthammer and his ilk thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place. Now we’re supposed to take his advice? Chuck, you’ve done enough damage. Just shut up, please.