VICTORY IN IRAQ

Reportedly relying on the advice of some pointy-headed academic from Duke University, the Bush Administration has decided that continuously throwing the word “Victory” at the American people will halt their eroding support for the endeavor in Iraq. The contention, based on the pointy-head’s research, is that Americans have a much higher tolerance for casualties in a war if they think victory is an achievable goal. Duh.

The first point to note is that for a long time Republicans made political hay out of their characterization of Democrats as the party of pointy-headed academics. Just goes to show that pointy-heads range the ideological spectrum.

But is continually screeching “victory” at the American people going to be enough? After all, the Bushies are being very careful not to define with any precision what “victory” in Iraq will consist of. It certainly won’t be anything as well defined as the signing of surrender papers on the deck of the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Well, this is the genius of the strategy, and here the Bush Administration may be borrowing an idea from a deceased U.S. Senator who was Republican but today would most likely be uncomfortable with the party’s ideological absolutism. As the American people were becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Vietnam War, Senator George Aiken of Vermont suggested that we simply declare victory and leave.

The cranky old guy predicts that something along the lines of Senator Aiken’s approach is in the works. The push following the elections will be to form a government. The U.S. effort will be to get the participants to agree on anything that resembles an in-charge body. The establishment of that body will be, if not the full “victory” itself, at least an important component of it. We might even have another carrier landing, with a “VICTORY” banner instead of a “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner. And troops will be coming home, probably not all of them but a significant number, maybe even to a parade down 5th or on Constitution Avenue.

But Iraq will not resemble a tolerant peaceful democracy anytime soon. If “victory” is just a step in a long-term journey, then “victory” is achievable. By implicitly raising the specter of historical victories, however, the Bushies are setting the nation up for another letdown, and themselves for the charge of once again over-stating and over-promising.

Incidentally, the President is receiving kudos for finally admitting to a few mistakes. The cranky old guy thinks these admissions are commendable. But they are very little and very late. The cranky old guy wants to hear an explicit admission about the pre-eminent mistake: entering Iraq with far too few troops to secure the country. The cranky old guy doesn’t want to hear any more statements to the effect that “I gave the generals what they asked for.” Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki certainly didn’t get the troops he asked for. The generals were political enough to hear the underlying, unstated message: “don’t ask for much.”

DSH