Bush's War
As the movement of our carrier group into the Persian Gulf, the attack on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, and the flaunting of the supposedly secret presidential directive authorizing covert activity against Iran and Syria all demonstrate, the Bush administration is placing its bets on an ill-disguised policy of military provocation.
Bush hopes that Iran and/or Syria and/or al-Sadr will respond with a fatal piece of confrontational bombast in response—or that an environment of escalating crisis and chaos will permit the manufacture of a suitable pretext if our enemies perversely refuse to oblige—and the U.S. can unleash its armed might in response.
Then It’s War! and Bush can take the bit in his teeth once again and trade his frustrations in Iraq for the satisfactions of a full-bore high-tech air assault on Iran and the application of crushing military and political pressure to Assad’s rickety regime in Syria.
No doubt there is an AEI policy paper claiming that war against Iran and Syria combined with the efforts of our billion dollar baby in Baghdad, Prime Minister Maliki, will cause the Sunni insurgency and the Sh’iite militias to wither on the vine simultaneously.
But I doubt that anybody’s thought that far ahead and, if they have, that they’re taking that pipe dream seriously. This is all about the pleasure of talking big and blowing shit up.
The chances of Teheran and Damscus giving Bush what he is looking for—an unambiguous, nation-rallying causus belli—is pretty slim.
These are regimes with finely honed survival instincts and decades of experience avoiding deadly confrontation with the biggest bully on the block.
Iran and Syria know they have the political and strategic upper hand now and know it’s better to hunker down and take a few brutal hits, even an Israeli attack against the Iranian nuclear program, and wait until the Bush effort in the Middle East collapses of its own absurdity or Bush slinks off to Crawford wearing the idiot’s crown of Worst President Ever.
This is how I think the calculus of war on six fronts—Iraq Sunni, Iraq al Sadr, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas—adds up for Bush, Cheney, and Rove:
Chance of Middle East peace and democratic transformation; Bush wins Nobel Peace Prize: 0
Chance of successful regime change in Syria and Iran; Bush gets props as morally tainted, double-dealing, but effective SOB a la Nixon: 1%
Chance of peaceful, democratic Iraq; Bush comes out looking luckier than LBJ: 1% again
Chance of stampeding the Democratic Congress into another ridiculous “I was against it before I was for it” pro/anti-war muddle, enabling Bush to get from behind the political 8-ball, shrug off legislative oversight, prolong his imperial presidency until the end of his term, and claim that he took his licks in the Middle East but, unlike Jimmy Carter, didn’t leave office looking like a wuss: 15%
Chance that the powers and privileges of a wartime president generates enough division, gridlock, paralysis, and stonewalling to block efforts to nail his hide to the wall and Bush can finish out his term asserting that, unlike Clinton, he wasn’t impeached so he must have been a better president : 50-50%
In other words, the concern is politics and Bush’s desire to transform himself from Pathetic Lame Duck into Mighty War Eagle.
Genuine success in the Middle East is a much lower priority, probably because everybody has a pretty clear idea that it’s unachievable.
Right now, it’s all about using the Fog ‘O War to extend the middle finger to the Democratic Congress and the will of the American people with impunity.
But I think we’ve moved farther into the impeachment zone than Bush realizes.
Trying to wrong-foot the Democratic leadership and regain the political advantage by escalating the Middle East conflict on six fronts is delusional.
It is immoral for a President and Commander-in-Chief to endanger America’s strategic position in the Middle East for decades, the long-term health and effectiveness of its armed forces, and the lives of its soldiers so carelessly and cavalierly.
Bush’s policy choices are so perverse, the chances of genuine success so remote, and the likely consequences so disastrous that it is almost impossible to justify any further sacrifice of lives, money, or America’s standing and interests in order to pursue them.
I hope that the Democratic leadership is rethinking its “no impeachment” pledge in light of current events.
If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stand up and say that America’s safety requires the immediate removal of this uniquely unworthy, duplicitous, incapable, and reckless individual from his position as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, they might be pleasantly surprised at how many people inside and outside of Washington will line up on their side in the war against Bush.
