About-Face: Brent Scowcroft Provides Cover for Bush Escalation
Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:03:49 PM PDT
The former National Security Advisor under Bush the 1st, Brent Scowcroft--who was actually opposed to the Iraq invasion in the beginning, ensuing a rift between the Papa and Junior camps, has written an Op-ed in the New York Times partly hailing the Iraq Study Group findings but also ends up covering for the inevitable Bush-McCain-Lieberman Escalation Doctrice.
He begins by telling us the the dire consequenses that would ocurr from a withdrawal from Iraq...
An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself" would be a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized.
Iran, heady with the withdrawal of its principal adversary, would expand its influence through Hezbollah and Hamas more deeply into Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. Our Arab friends would rightly feel we had abandoned them to face alone a radicalism that has been greatly inflamed by American actions in the region and which could pose a serious threat to their own governments.
The effects would not be confined to Iraq and the Middle East. Energy resources and transit choke points vital to the global economy would be subjected to greatly increased risk. Terrorists and extremists elsewhere would be emboldened. And the perception, worldwide, would be that the American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer be considered a reliable ally or friend — or the guarantor of peace and stability in this critical region.
These have been repeated ad nauseum from the Very Serious People now for months. Withdrawal = Armaggendon basically. But here, Scowcroft also repeats the talking point that anything other than what the president has called "victory" in Iraq, i.e. "[An Iraq that can] govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself" is a defeat for America.
This is a high bar to set, and it is too little too late because we have already been defeated there. I am not going to spend tim refuting Scowcroft's analysis of why withdrawal would be horrific since it has been discussed many times elsewhere.
Scowcroft then continues to prescribe his solutions which include fixing the Arab-Israeli conflict, talking to Syria, Iran, etc. But then, he delivers this:
American combat troops should be gradually redeployed away from intervening in sectarian conflict. That necessarily is a task for Iraqi troops, however poorly prepared they may be. Our troops should be redirected toward training the Iraqi Army, providing support and backup, combating insurgents, attenuating outside intervention and assisting in major infrastructure protection.
Not too bad there, he seems to be endorsing some form of redeployment right?! Not so fast...
That does not mean the American presence should be reduced. Indeed, in the immediate future, the opposite may be true, though any increase in troop strength should be directed at accomplishing specific, defined missions. A generalized increase would be unlikely to demonstrably change the situation and, consequently, could result in increased clamor for withdrawal. But the central point is that withdrawing combat forces should not be a policy objective, but rather, the result of changes in our strategy and success in our efforts.
There you have it folks. Of course, we propably need to escalate right now...so long as it provides a clear mission! Because we all know that Bush will not concoct up a phony mission such as "securing Baghdad"! Scowcroft tries then to say that a general increase with no mission will be futile (no shit Croftie!), but is that really what the president is going to say? Will he really simply preempt TV time to tell the American people that we will just send 30,000 more troops, end of story? Of course not. There will be a phony mission behind it, and thanks to Brent Scowcroft's approval and cover, Bush has tried to buy himself more time to save face and continue his meat grinder. According to Scowcroft, we do not need to reduce troops at all, withdrawal is out of the question, and in fact we need to escalate to achieve the impossible goal that Bush has set for "victory". Unless I am totally misreading this Op-ed, Bush has just gained the seal of approval from the Old and Wise Club of I.R. Realists.
Thanks for nothing, Brent.
Permalink | 19 comments