Page 3 of 3
Shockingly, even when confronted by the reality of the invasion's failure to transform Iraq into an oasis of peace, prosperity and American-style democracy, Bush refused to change course.
Critics of the war were greeted with Bush's "good progress" mantra. His supporters berated critics as Negative Nellies, Henny Pennies and, worst of all, terrorist sympathizers.
Last December, Bush finally acknowledged that the occupation was going terribly. But his solution was more of the same: a small escalation popularly known as "The Surge."
The goal of the Surge is to stabilize Iraq enough to hand off control to Iraqi troops working for the Iraqi government. It might have worked if it had started in May 2003 with an international force of 450,000. But with only 160,000 exhausted American troops, whose rotations will require a significant troop reduction by April 2008, it has no chance. Besides, there aren't enough Iraqi troops. And there isn't really an Iraqi government.
Which brings us to:
Loser move No. 4: "You" haven't been paying any attention.
Yeah, You.
I know You have been feeling really good about yourself ever since Time magazine glued a mirror to its cover and declared You its 2006 Person of the Year.
But You have a lot to answer for. By which I mean "We."
We put Bush in office (in this case, by "We," I actually mean you, since I didn't vote for him). We paid scant attention to all the smart people who explained that his policies weren't only incoherent and illogical, but harmful to the cause of fighting terrorists.
Yet, we cheered him on.
Some of You are still cheering him on. Reality-be-damned, you're intent on rooting for your team.
Some of You used to cheer him on, but are now so horrified by Iraq that you want to pull out completely -- as if we have no obligation to help the country we've actually done a worse job of running than Saddam Hussein did.
We've made so many loser moves that all we have left are loser options. If we stay, we babysit a civil war. If we leave, we abandon the civil war we unleashed.
Our least-bad option may be to shepherd the breakup of Iraq, which carries its own risks (ethnic cleansing, an Iranian invasion, etc.). Whatever we do, our choices are complicated. "You" need to start paying attention and voicing support for leaders who are honest about which policies have the best chance of limiting the damage Bush's War on Terror™ has wrought. Or should I say, hath wrought. "Hath" sounds more biblical.
Iraq and the War on Terror™ are going to be part of our lives for a long time. So be it. That works out well for me. It keeps me employed. I'm like Halliburton that way.
