The Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war reminds me of flying-ace Snoopy, with goggles down and steely determination, though of course his victories are all in his head. Or maybe a Vegas high-roller, who, after an unbroken four-year losing streak, decides to bet what little is left in one last gamble.
The first metaphor is that of delusion; the second, that of pathetic desperation. Still, either is superior to the administration in sanity or wisdom, since neither is playing with other people's lives. In doing the latter, one enters the decidedly unmetaphorical realm of criminal recklessness -- which some men in uniform, perhaps looking for civilian brownie points, now want to broaden.
"The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008," reported the NYT yesterday, and this morning reports that his boss, too, now "assert[s] a need for open-endedness in the American commitment."
And here's a quotable quote to clarify things: "The White House has never said exactly how long it intends the troop buildup to last, but military officials say the increased American force level will begin declining in August unless additional units are sent."
So we'll have fewer there, unless we send more. That's the kind of clear thinking that promotions are made of. If only I had signed up for a military career years ago: I could have sat and thunk profound thoughts like that all day long, in the secure pursuit of a dynamite pension.
Logic aside, "more" is what seems to be in the Iraqi cards, to return to our gambling metaphor.
"The confidential assessment by the commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, reflects the military’s new counterinsurgency doctrine" -- that would be counterinsurgency doctrine #? -- "which puts a premium on sustained efforts to try to win over a wary population."
What did I miss? How is that "new"? Haven't we been reading about "sustained efforts to try to win over a wary population" for months, even years?
Nevertheless the effort is marketed as truly newly new, and whose announced introduction just happens to come after the midterm elections and after a partial "surge" deployment is on the ground and in harm's way. Arnold Rothstein himself could not have dreamed up a slicker shell game.
What's more, "to meet troop requirements" for the extended, heightened stay, "the Army would need to look seriously at mobilizing additional National Guard units later this year." The Army may first want to look at this piece, however, which I commented on a few days ago and leads off with the staggering revelation that "nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated 'not ready.'"
Naturally, to soften the altogether expected blow of the coming troop-level bait and switch, "the Bush administration [is already citing] what it calls early signs of progress." Yet just as naturally, those signs are in reality less than progressive, as scores of Shiite pilgrims on their way to Karbala would tell you, if only they had survived recent massacres.
Yesterday I quoted former White House aide Mary Matalin on "madness," a condition her ilk believes applies to a criminal's prosecution, but not to this war. So continues the asylum's reign.
***
NOTE: My book, Political Low Roads: American Demagoguery and the Rise of the New Right, is now available for pre-order. Be the first on your block to own a copy, or two, or 30, and take a sobering journey through the rhetorical shenanigans that got us into this mess. You can order Political Low Roads through BarnesandNoble.com, Amazon.com, or directly from the publisher. -- P.M.