Thanks to Crooks & Liars (and in truth Jon Stewart) I've come to realize that President Bush's biggest Iraq problem is that he can't define "victory" as well as he can define "failure."
In regards to ending the occupation of Iraq, he's essentially said it won't happen until there's victory. What's "victory?" Hard to say, since he's claimed military success regardless of whether the number of US soldiers killed goes up or down.
As Fred Kaplan notes, Bush's clearest vision of "victory" is so far-fetched mankind is more likely to sprout wings and fly before it can be achieved:
The definition has evolved, or devolved, in the five years that this war has been raging. Originally, victory was conceived in grandiose terms. The defeat of Saddam Hussein's army and the toppling of his regime would spawn a new democratic Iraq, the example of which would ignite the flames of freedom across the Middle East.
Bush scaled back the standard in a November 2005 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy titled "A Strategy for Victory." This victory will come, he said, "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe-haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."
In January 2007, the National Security Council formalized the concept in a document titled "The Iraq Strategy Review," which stated that the "strategic goal" was "a unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror."
Bush and others have heralded much progress in the past year, as the troop surge went into effect and as Gen. David Petraeus devised new tactics based on counterinsurgency principles. Casualties have gone down, in some areas dramatically. The Iraqi army and police have grown in size.
However, by the Bush administration's own standards of success, laid out in the president's speech and the NSC's strategy review, we are no closer to victory now than we were when those documents were drafted. Iraq is not unified, it is only superficially democratic, it cannot govern itself, its security forces cannot provide for the safety of its citizens, and it remains more of a haven for terrorists than an ally in the war against them.
In other words:
His definition for victory is as ever-changing as his reasons for going to Iraq in the first place. And just as vague.
"Failure," on the other hand? Oh he's all on it. As Stewart mentioned, Bush seems almost clairvoyant in his description of "failure in Iraq," also known as "leaving the Iraqis to stabilize their own country."
On 4/10/08 one of many "fact sheets"...
Failure in Iraq would diminish our Nation's standing, undermine national security, lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland. If we fail in Iraq, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States and our friends and allies. Iran would seek to fill the vacuum in Iraq, which would embolden Tehran's radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness.
On 1/31/08, while in Vegas...
Success in Iraq will send an interesting message to its neighbor, Iran. Failure in Iraq would cause people to doubt the sincerity of the United States when it comes to keeping commitments. Failure in Iraq would embolden the extremists. Failure in Iraq would say to thugs and killers, the United States is a paper tiger. Failure in Iraq would embolden other extremists in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq would embolden Iran. It's in our strategic interests that we succeed. And we will succeed. We have done this kind of work together.
On 5/31/07, Bush told Iraqi President Talabani...
Mr. President, it is important that you succeed. Failure in Iraq would endanger the American citizens because failure in Iraq would embolden the enemies of a free Iraq. David Petraeus said, public enemy number one in Iraq is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda happens to be public enemy number one in America, too. And that should say loud and clear to citizens who still remember the lessons of September the 11th that it's in our interest to help the Iraqis defeat al Qaeda.
On 5/24/07, at a press conference...
Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven the great soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States...
...One of the areas where I really believe we need more of a national discussion, however, is, what would be the consequences of failure in Iraq? See, people have got to understand that if that government were to fall, the people would tend to divide into kind of sectarian enclaves, much more so than today, that would invite Iranian influence and would invite al Qaeda influence, much more so than in Iraq today. That would then create enormous turmoil, or could end up creating enormous turmoil in the Middle East, which would have a direct effect on the security of the United States.
Failure in Iraq affects the security of this country. It's hard for some Americans to see that, I fully understand it. I see it clearly. I believe this is the great challenge of the beginning of the 21st century -- not just Iraq, but dealing with this radical, ideological movement in a way that secures us in the short term and more likely secures us in the long term.
NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ (2005 Version)...
* Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow...
Failure is Not an Option
• Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
• Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region – a historic opportunity lost.
• The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ (which going by the search, is the 2007 Version)...
Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
*Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
*The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
Failure is Not an Option
*Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
*Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
*The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
So keeping in mind what Bush sees as "victory" and "failure," consider some of the following things that has happened while he's been busy defining this grand fuckup (instead of doing his job):
- Moqtada al-Sadr has called for a handful of cease-fires, with or without the involvement of the US government.
- It's been revealed that some soldiers were being briefed that there weren't any WMD in Iraq.
- Iraqi soldiers have either quit or abandoned their American allies in battle.
- It's been revealed that 80% of Arabs have an "unfavorable view" of America.
Do these things represent "victory," or do they represent "failure?" I'm still stuck.
One thing is clear (unless this too has changed since 2005):
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."
- President George W. Bush, February 26, 2003
Uh-huh. Somehow I think it has more to do with...