You Can't Handle the...Nevermind

An interesting article over here about (what else) Iraq; interesting because it makes a couple points which politicians tend to gloss over.

Bush's supporters are big on rhetoric about staying until the mission's accomplished. But what does that mean, really? "'The time scale to succeed is years,' said John J. Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary, while 'the time scale for tolerance here is 12 months for Democrats and 18 months for Republicans.'"

Fundamentally, the biggest problem with the administration's approach to Iraq was that they believed that Iraq's dictatorship could be toppled and replaced with a democratic government in the space of a year or so, perhaps 2 at the most. They had to sell the war to the American people (and, to a lesser extent, the global populace) in the first place, so the rhetoric all centered around Saddam and how he was so dangerous that he had to be removed. Just as in the Plame case, what's most frustrating is that had the administration been honest, it might have been excusable. People make mistakes, and many things that have happened in Iraq could not have been easily predicted. But now you're looking at a 5 to 10 year process just to work the cycle of violence out, and politicians continue to suggest that America can simply send more troops to calm Baghdad down for the summer, and all the other problems - the underlying ones which drive the violence - will magically work themselves out in that time.

There are, to my mind, two major reasons why sectarian violence continues. The first stems from political discontent. I don't think extremists from either sect are convinced that democratic forms of power sharing are acceptable; I don't think they view the level of compromise required by most democracies to be possible or desirable. I don't know how you convince these people that it can work; religious extremists are not known for their flexibility of doctrine.

The second stems from the American presence in Iraq, and is driven mainly by foreign fighters, or largely influenced by them. As long as American troops are seen as occupiers in Iraq, as long as America continues to support Israel, as long as America maintains garrisons in Saudi Arabia there will always be those who use these facts as rhetoric to drum up support among the disaffected and disenfranchised. America is there, and America is vulnerable; not only militarily but politically, because toppling an American-supported government is the closest terrorrists will ever come to toppling America itself.

But instead of coming right out and telling us this is what is required, the administration stonewalls. They say we can't withdraw now, but don't even attempt to say how long they think victory might take. How can voters make rational decisions when the only plan given is, "Trust us"? What about the troops, those troops which politicians are always so quick to say they support, who are having tours extended, being called up more frequently, and having home time cut to shorter and shorter lengths? Don't they deserve to be told the truth?

Across the board, this administration has responded, no. The American people are not strong enough to handle the truth; indeed, they don't want to be told the truth. In terms of domestic politics, Bush's true legacy is not Iraq, it's the reclaiming of executive privilege which he and his staff have overseen. From his use of recess appointments to signing statements to the numerous confrontations with Congress over testimony from presidential staff and advisors, the Bush administration has pushed presidential power to levels that are probably pre-Watergate. And while they may be content today with their guy in the White House, they might do well to remember that once power is established, it is exponentially more difficult to get rid of it; and some day, the person in the White House might disagree with them.