I've often read the opinion that Bush's intention is to let the Iraq war continue on into the next presidential administration, kicking the can on down the road. However, that never seemed all that plausible to me, because it forgets the one overwhelming modus operandi of the Bush Republicans: every action must be calculated to increase and consolidate Republican power. This key principle underlies every disastrous step they've taken, and was, as is widely understood, the prime motivator of the Iraq invasion in the first place.
Since even before the invasion, they have successfully played Iraq to browbeat Democratic members of Congress into signing onto stupid legislation, and they used it to help win the 2004 election. It's true that things slipped a bit in 2006, and are still slipping. But Bush and his closest advisors don't seem to be upset enough about it to change their policies regarding the war. Why not?
I think that it's actually pretty clear why not, and I and others even wrote about it back in 2003. The plan all along has been to use the Iraq conflict once more during the election cycle in 2008 to help Republicans. This was never more clear than in the kinds of responses the administration has begun to make to the increasing discontent of the American people regarding the war. They are sticking to the original plan, because they have no real alternative, yes, but also because they believe it will work. And, they may be right.
Bush shrugs off suggestions that he will be remembered as the worst US president; he shrugs off suggestions that the war is a failure. His advisors continue to suggest that the war can still be "won". The shared rationale for this apparently aberrant behavior has two main parts. First, if they back down, it will be an admission that their war had failed in some way. Their non-admission of failure is the finger in the dike, it's all that's holding back the deluge. As long as they have any hope to come out on top, they must not even suggest that there could be failure. Second, as I stated above, the overwhelming goal is the aggregation and consolidation of Republican political power. If they can time things well, then they can still use the Iraq intervention to achieve those goals, or at least that's what they believe.
That's the reason why they will start "drawing down" American troops in early 2008. It never had anything to do with the Iraqi government's actions or inaction, it was all about the American election cycle. If they really do start bringing our forces home, along with intense spin about the "victory/ies" we have achieved, the incompetence of the Iraqis who prevented us from achieving much more, and the "need" to keep a sizable force there in perpetuity to protect the fragile Iraqi democracy, then I think they could, in fact, once again use Iraq to win, or at least not lose, a presidential election.
I know I'm being pessimistic here, and also that I'm assuming a small attention span and large degree of gullibility on the part of our electorate, but I fear that I'm right about this. This is a well-established plan and I have no doubt that it will be carried out very smoothly.
The Democrats lose if they cannot control the end of the war. If they let the clock run out, and let Bushco start his "draw down", on his terms, then they will lose all credibility on the war. Just watch: the Americans who now hold Bush in such low esteem will accept him as the savior of our soldiers and as a great statesman, if he presides over a significant and well-spun withdrawal of forces from Iraq. The Republicans who now appear to be attacking him over the war (this is how it is presented in the media, but those aren't attacks as I understand the word), will jump back on board as soon as they see people coming home. Complaints by Democrats about the illegal invasion or the incompetent conduct of the military campaign will be characterized as "old news", and voters will tune them out.
Well, that's what I think.
Greg Shenaut