While the actual war for winning Iraq continues on the Middle Eastern front, there also seems to be a war of reports to win the public and congressional consent. What remains for the international community, who has a stake in developments in Iraq, is to watch how this political "ballgame" in the US will turn out. As if these are the only issues at hand, the discussion on Iraq has been reduced to whether President Bush's recent military surge tactic has worked and when the troop withdrawal should start. The long-awaited progress report by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is due next week. No one expects a bleak public assessment from them, since they work under an optimist commander-in-chief. Preceding reports by the relatively independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as well as the National Intelligence Council's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), however, have not necessarily emboldened the White House's position. Although there is mention of some improvement, especially in the area of security, the glass as a whole still looks emptier than full. The GAO report concludes that only three of the 18 congressional benchmarks for progress have been fully met.
No matter what independent observers would say, the White House side will essentially defend its position by saying: "For the first time in Iraq we were have been able to add some water into the glass. Allow us to stay the course and make more progress." And skeptics would object, saying, "The glass is far away from getting filled and the newly added water can easily evaporate in the Iraqi heat, so let's get our troops out of there."
It was no accident that George W. Bush made an unannounced visit to Iraq's Anbar province. Anbar was at the heart of the surge strategy and even his harshest critics can hardly deny it worked there. The temporary marriage of convenience between Sunnis and Americans in order to intimidate al-Qaeda produced a relative stability in Anbar. It became the "water that gave life" for a president who has long been thirsting for success in Iraq. He supports it enthusiastically. And he uses it effectively to sway public opinion.
Can the American people be fooled once again? Certainly. Many polls held in the summer showed consistent increases in the number of Americans who believed the US taking military action against Iraq was the right thing to do. For most men on the street, the military casualties of the US are the main demonstrator of success in Iraq. General Petraeus' plan is designed to ensure that US losses and sectarian clashes are mineralized. And it might have passed the test, at least in province of Anbar.
The following is a quote from at a recent Washington Post article: "Four months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could confidently declare: "This war is lost." Now that is an open question. A recent Zogby poll found that a majority of Americans do not believe the war is lost. And this makes democratic policies based on the assumption of hopelessness -- rigid timetables and funding cuts -- strategically irresponsible and politically risky."
So can President Bush steal some more time from the US Congress? Why not? True, this is a Democratic Party dominated body since January 2007. Plus, there is an upcoming election next year, therefore the White House often finds it even more difficult to convince fellow Republicans. But the final outcome of the exit strategy resolutions at Capitol Hill will be determined by the number of defector Republican senators. Democrats need the support of 17 Republicans in the Senate to override a presidential veto even if they are able to pass legislation for withdrawal.
The people surrounding President Bush constantly tell him that he will be seen as a 'far-sighted' leader by history, like his ex-advisor Karl Rove asserts in a recent National Review Online article. "History's concern is with final outcomes, not the missteps or advances of the moment," says Rove. In an article on the Wall Street Journal, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives, Peter Wehner, writes "history has honored America's sacrifice and its role in building a more hopeful world. It will do so again, if we can, one more time, summon the will." Wehner mentions "mistakes," "misjudgments" and "lives lost," however he presents them as 'the nature of war, which involves unexpected costs and awful sacrifices." That is not so easy.
Will history be benevolent to Bush as his co-warriors suggest? Aren't they going to be held accountable for the costs and sacrifices of this war of choice? Or will history stop short of asking the question 'What were the awful sacrifices you guys at the White House made when so many people were sacrificed because of your decisions?' That remains to be seen. If you ask me, no matter who wins the war of reports of today, I would be surprised if Bush ultimately proves a winner in history, a popular ambition of all American presidents.
