NOW IS THE TIME TO JUST TELL BUSH NO!

Bush has fired a bunch of generals whose reality about Iraq he just doesn't want to hear-- even though for the last 4 years all we've ever heard from his lying yap is how he's just doin' whatever the military commanders say he has to do. Now he's moving in a batch of ass-kissers and bloodthirsty neo-fascists who mirror the rest of his regime. One military man-- one with a great deal of success behind him-- whose advice Bush would never listen to in a million years, is former NATO commander in chief, Wes Clark. Today Wes wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, reprinted by the Washington Post (that doesn't seem that common, does it?) warning Bush that he's got the wrong kind of surge in mind and that it will backfire.

"What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace...

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq is for our troops, the underlying problems are political... In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a
blanket of forces-- it cannot be smothered easily, for additional U.S. efforts can stir additional resistance-- but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort... The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq... Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements... The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than 'stay the course more.' That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

If he won't listen to a military leader of Wes Clark's accomplishments and stature, how about a Princeton economist and New York Times journalist with some well-grounded opinions? Not likely. But that won't stop Krugman from continuing to give Bush some very solid advice, any of which could have been followed and would have saved the country and the world untold tribulations! Today Krugman is as sharp as ever in a piece called "Quagmire of the Vanities," a piece, alas, no one will ever read to Mr. Bush.

The only real question about the planned "surge" in Iraq-- which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation-- is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thinks they're cynical. He recently told The Washington Post that administration officials are simply running out the clock, so that the next president will be "the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof." Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for his research on irrationality in decision-making, thinks they're delusional. Mr. Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon recently argued in Foreign Policy magazine that the administration's unwillingness to face reality in Iraq reflects a basic human aversion to cutting one's losses-- the same instinct that makes gamblers stay at the table, hoping to break even. Of course, such gambling is easier when the lives at stake are those of other people's children.

I don't think someone like Bush likes reading someone like Krugman. Our loss. In fact, it isn't just Generals Abazaid and Casey who have been dismissed for insisting on reporting objective reality to the delusional Bush. "Consider," suggests Krugman, "the case of the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief during 2004, who provided accurate assessments of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. 'What is he, some kind of defeatist?' asked the president-- and according to The Washington Post, at the end of his tour, the station chief 'was punished with a poor assignment.'" Bush feels far more comfortable turning to other delusional ideologues who tell him exactly what he wants to hear-- people just like himself, with his own born-loser instincts.

The principal proponents of the "surge" are William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. Now, even if the Joint Chiefs of Staff hadn't given the surge a thumbs down, Mr. Kristol's track record should have been reason enough to ignore his advice. For example, early in the war, Mr. Kristol dismissed as "pop sociology" warnings that there would be conflict between Sunnis and Shiites and that the Shiites might try to create an Islamic fundamentalist state. He assured National Public Radio listeners that "Iraq's always been very secular."
But Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan appealed to Mr. Bush's ego, suggesting that he might yet be able to rescue his signature war. And am I the only person to notice that after all the Oedipal innuendo surrounding the Iraq Study Group-- Daddy's men coming in to fix Junior's mess, etc.-- Mr. Bush turned for advice to two other sons of famous and more successful fathers?
Not that Mr. Bush rejects all advice from elder statesmen. We now know that he has been talking to Henry Kissinger. But Mr. Kissinger is a kindred spirit. In remarks published after his death, Gerald Ford said of his secretary of state, "Henry in his mind never made a mistake, so whatever policies there were that he implemented, in retrospect he would defend."
Oh, and Senator John McCain, the first major political figure to advocate a surge, is another man who can't admit mistakes. Mr. McCain now says that he always knew that the conflict was "probably going to be long and hard and tough"-- but back in 2002, before the Senate voted on the resolution authorizing the use of force, he declared that a war with Iraq would be "fairly easy."
Mr. Bush is expected to announce his plan for escalation in the next few days. According to the BBC, the theme of his speech will be "sacrifice." But sacrifice for what? Not for the national interest, which would be best served by withdrawing before the strain of the war breaks our ground forces. No, Iraq has become a quagmire of the vanities-- a place where America is spending blood and treasure to protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong.

As for those Democrats like Pelosi and Reid who are asking Bush to reconsider... well... Bush's The Decider. According to the Center for American Progress, not many legislators have announced whether they oppose or support Bush's and McCain's escalation doctrine. Weighing in on the oppose side, we've had Republican Senators Chuck Hagel ("It's Alice in Wonderland"), Arlen Specter, Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith (who referred to Bush's policy as "criminal"), and Susan Collins; Democratic Senators Harry Reid, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Jay Rockefeller, Barbara Boxer; Republican House member Heather Wilson; and Democratic House members Barney Frank, Ike Skelton, Nancy Pelosi, Ellen Tauscher (normally a complete Bush kiss-ass), and John Murtha. Waitin' and seein' include Republicans Dick Lugar, Trent Lott, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chamberpot, John Sununu, John Warner, John Ensign, Mel Martinez, Roy Blunt, Peter King, John McHugh, Bill Young; and Democrats John Tester, Mary Landreiu, and Ken Salazar. The lockstep supporters of escalation, besides Lieberman and McCain, are Jon Kyle, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Wayne Allard, and Lindsay Graham.

And I'm sure Bush isn't paying any attention to the Firedoglake crowd, although he'd get the best advice there.

Let's see, we've got benchmarks (nee "milestones"). We've got no discernible penalties in the [inevitable] event the Iraqis fail to meet said benchmarks, only the Administration's swearing on Saddam Hussein's noose that there will be penalties. Yup, we've got inclusion of the Sunnis in the political process, we've got an increase in troop presence in the most dangerous areas of the country. And most importantly, we've conveniently got another four to six "Friedman Units" in which even more U.S. troops are sacrificed on the altar to Bush's vanity and more U.S. taxpayer dollars poured into the money pit that is the Iraqi war.  Where have I heard this all before?

So once again,  George Bush pushes deck chairs around instead of swallowing his baseless pride and producing a plan that might not entirely jibe with his megalomaniacal visions.  This time, however, the crowd is not so gullible that we can't see that Bush's latest "strategy to win" is nothing more than the old plan typed out on clean sheets of paper.  

But just because it's so blatantly obvious to the rest of us doesn't mean Congress won't serve as the mark in the Bush shell game.  Yes, Reid and Pelosi can write letters and threaten to cut funding, but they need to back up those words with meaningful action. Already, presidential hopeful Joe "Plugs" Biden (D-MBNA) is dismissing the Democratic response to the troop surge as "tinkering." He is quoted in the article as saying “[President Bush'll] be able to keep the troops there forever, constitutionally, if he wants to.” What the hell kind of defeatist talk is this?

It's crucial that we resist this now. Really crucial. Biden's Senate hearings start tomorrow. Feingold is on the committee, as are Webb and Boxer. They're the best of the lot. But politicians follow most of the time, rather than lead. Let's make sure they follow us.