Let's remember when Rumsfeld recently met the Senate, trying to deflect bad news about his handling of the war in Iraq. He was eventually asked by a Democrat Senator what could be his plan for Iran..., now he has over-stretched the army in the quagmire of Iraq.
The Sec.Def. marked a long pause before answering that "there is no plan for Iran on the table". Was he really surprised by the idea of any strategy toward Iran, or did he want to stress that even a Democrat felt the need to confront that country ? Was he unsettled by the Senator inquiry, or just enjoying this strange moment where a worried Democrat argument matched exactly the position of the hawks in his administration ?
He made some Democrats come out of the bush. And maybe he could justify another Presidential war, now, upon a bipartisan consensus he could spin to "push a happy regime change", again !
About two weeks later, when the limelight of the media left the retired Generals critics, to focus more on Iran, the story was presented a different way. Rumsfeld was proud to drop a hint about his shrewd strategy concerning that very country : think, having occupied both Iraq on the West side, and Afghanistan, situated on the East of Iran, is "not bad" a strategy to contain the danger everybody (both US parties) recognize Iran represents.
Meanwhile, the public came to learn about a Plan to bomb Iran, and a nuclear one if you please. A plan the White House both dismissed and would not take "out of the table" (a truth for everyone, if you like !)
Cornering Rumsfeld about Iran in the Senate was not unsound at first sight : it was a good point to make, and an easy one; it produced an embarrassment while stressing the Democrats care for National Security. It was in a way being more realistic and more defensive than the acting Administration. But eventually it proved only a quick gain with questionable long term consequences.
The message is ambiguous whether Democratic Opponents strongly realize that the current Administration is on a really wrong path, with a big collection of still as badly motivated policies in store; OR if they still believe in bipartisan decision sharing with Rumsfeld and Bush, and only ask the executive to please be more decent and amends itself. If that point is not clear, the ensuing arguments have no legs and can as well be overturned by the other side.
The same is true about Falluja city. Before reelection, democrats and military analysts and critics (including Bob Herbert) went to give a real politic lesson to war strategists. They criticized the hesitation to quell Falluja city, and the sparing of Sadr militia. On the false assumption that Falluja and Sadr where the only problems towards Iraq's stability, they trumpeted that had the «Coalition» Authority crushed them completely (as Bremer later claimed to have asked) the country would be "pacified" by now.
That was a heavy blow against the course of the war, and it was an easy point to make and a quick gain in the ongoing campaign.
But once Bush was reelected, he was quick to project abroad the «Political Capital» US voters gave him. And the massive destruction of Falluja was calmly set up. Soldiers were told they were to fight the Evil, Hospitals were destroyed first, wounded were allegedly killed on the ground, and White Phosphorus gently sprayed over the rebellious city.
It is sad to say that, not only his Republican electors, but some Bush's worst critics alike, had bought into the Political Capital unleashing the Chief's iron hand strategy. Let the world fear the american ballot and the short-sighted, half hearted Democrat's opposition!
And the same could be said about the «number of troops on the ground» debate. Who really want to send more boys into the hand of a Pentagon chief that never stop smiling ?
