One Utah

If you missed “60 Minutes,” then you ought to watch this now. Scott Pelley interviewed Bob Woodward about his new book on the so-called “surge” in Iraq.

Now, normally I wouldn’t hit the keyboard to run the risk of helping Woodward– he’s a smug s.o.b. who wrote adulatory books about President Bush until Bush’s poll numbers took a dive, and now he’s an administration critic. The problem is, he had inside access all along and hid the truth. For example, he was the first reporter to know about the criminal, politically motivated Valerie Plame identity leak, but he sat on it for two years– not even telling his editors at the Washington Post. It was a cover-up, not journalism.

Woodward is still not telling us all he knows, probably hoarding secrets for future books. But what he says now about the “surge” confirms what we knew at the time. We knew that President Bush never listened to “the commanders on the ground” on Iraq strategy as he claimed (this is what Rachel Maddow would call “lying”), nor did he listen to the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Bush ignored his Iraq commander, General Casey, his CENTCOM commander, General Abizaid, and the Pentagon brass. Instead he turned to that most political of generals, David Petraeus, with a politically-contrived plan that had already been rejected by the military.

Bush gave Petraeus a fourth star, and Petraeus took command of the “surge” even though he knew it was a political stunt.

[I actually don't want Woodward's ugly mug spoiling my post- deleted]

I don’t plan to read Woodward’s book because I don’t respect him as a journalist. I don’t know what his conclusions are about the so-called “surge.” In strategic terms, the “surge” was an abysmal failure because (in my own opinion):

(1) It prevented reinforcements from going to Afghanistan in time to prevent disaster there, and made no difference to the outcome in Iraq (i.e. U.S. withdrawal).

(2) Thanks to the “surge,” 2007 was the bloodiest year of the Iraq occupation. Raids and air strikes intended to prevent armed militias from simply waiting out the “surge” caused a tremendous increase in civilian casualties. Artillery was called in on densely populated urban areas. The number of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis skyrocketed.

(3) The “surge” stretched our ground forces near the breaking point and ate up the last of our nation’s strategic reserve. The volunteer military is deteriorating fast under the strain of 15-month combat deployments (for example, recruitment standards have been lowered and non-commissioned officers are now being promoted before they are experienced enough).

(4) The so-called “benchmarks” (that the Iraqis never really agreed to) were never achieved, such as disarming militias, holding provincial elections and privatizing the Iraq oil sector so U.S. companies could take it over. At this point, elections have been postponed to June 2009 at the earliest, and possibly indefinitely.

Back to the “60 Minutes” interview. This is what got my attention:

“The president suggests to you, in your interview, that he believes he’s already outmaneuvered whoever the next president is. Foreclosed their options on what to do about Iraq,” Pelley said.

“He and the secretary of defense, Gates, both by appointing Petraeus as central [CENTCOM] commander, in other words the boss of the whole Middle East. And no matter who becomes president, they’re not going to be able to replace him. Petraeus is what my old boss at the Post used to call ‘fireproof’ - he’s done so well that he can’t be fired. And there is some satisfaction people in the Bush administration take with that,” Woodward explained.

“Satisfaction” because they believe Gen. Petraeus will resist a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

Well, they thought General Douglas MacArthur was “fireproof” too, and President Truman fired him. Our next President should not hesitate to fire Petraeus if he gets in the way of immediate redeployment. Trust me, most of our military officers will quietly cheer.

President Bush and the media think the “surge” was successful because Bush gets to leave office with more troops in Iraq than there were when the Democrats won the 2006 election. That’s a clear-cut political win. And it was what the “surge” was all about– creating the appearance of progress as political cover for a “stay the course” non-strategy.

UPDATE: Think Progress highlights another part of the “60 Minutes” interview: Woodward: Bush Doesn’t Understand Why Iraqis ‘Are Not Appreciative’ Of ‘Liberation’

This entry was posted Sunday, September 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm and is filed under 2008 Election, 4th Estate (Media), Disaster, George W. Bush, Iraq, Military, National Politics, Proof Bush Lied, This Blog, War. Both comments and pings are currently closed.