IS BUSH THIS DIABOLICAL?

The President’s threats about vetoing any Iraq War funding legislation that contains even a hint of time lines may not reflect his, and his allies, actual desires. If one were a cynic, which, of course, the cranky old guy is not, one might conclude that what W and his cronies really want is to pin the Democrats with the blame for the Iraqi debacle.

And even if the so-called “surge” strategy has some temporary success, the Iraqi effort will almost certainly be viewed as a debacle. Oh, perhaps historians in the distant future might conclude, “in the short and medium terms, it was a debacle, but in the great scheme of things, at the level where any analysis is far removed from individual human costs, the blundering of the United States under the so-called leadership of George W. Bush set in motion forces that ultimately were beneficial.” But that is certainly speculative and is of no solace to those who have suffered in the here and now.

But back to W’s current predicament. If he truly believes that “victory” is possible in Iraq, there is no predicament. He simply wants unfettered commander-in-chief power to pursue this “victory.” But it is possible that even he has come to realize the extreme unlikelihood of anything approaching “victory.” Thus the possible attractiveness of being able to say, “if the Democrat (opps, Democratic) Congress had only given me what I asked for, we would have achieved victory. But it didn’t, so Democrats are the reason we failed in Iraq.”

And if that is indeed W’s strategy, the nation is in for a great amount of unseemly political jockeying. The Democrats will push for time lines and other goals to get U.S. troops out of the line of fire, and ultimately Iraq. W will dig in his heels, avoiding any compromise or effort to find a middle ground. The Democrats then will be faced with two alternatives: capitulate to W’s apparent desires (which under this argument is a result he really doesn’t want because his ownership of the debacle would be uncontested); or be more and more assertive in efforts to bring the troops home. And the more assertive the Democrats are, the more they can be blamed for the almost inevitable messy—at best—outcome.

In other words, by being stubborn and not giving an inch, W either gets everything he wants (a result he actually might not want) or he gets to blame the Democrats for the failure to achieve victory.

Is W indeed this diabolical? You’ve observed him for the last six years. What do you think?

DSH