The essay is a plea for a level of bi-partisan cooperation and common ground that will preserve some relevance for Bush presidency.
I will have the privilege of working with [the 110th Congress] for the next two years — one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people.
It is also a preview of some domestic economic policy themes that will likely be featured in Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address (spending restraint and entitlement reform; no new taxes).
The missive is also clearly designed to make the case for a military “surge” in Iraq:
In the days ahead, I will be addressing our nation about a new strategy to help the Iraqi people gain control of the security situation and hasten the day when the Iraqi government gains full control over its affairs. Ultimately, Iraqis must resolve the most pressing issues facing them. We can’t do it for them.
But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq — and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America’s enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.
The entire emphasis of the “new strategy” is on the so-called security front. No new formula for national reconciliation, etc. in the political domain. This is about boots on the ground and–I suspect–aggressive counter-insurgency that recalls the anti-Baathist military operations from the summer and early fall of 2003.
Also, note well: “defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq.” Which extremists “outside of Iraq” does Bush have in mind? Extremists in Syria? Iran?
A Mandate for War?
Now, according to Bush, in light of the mid-term election victories by the Democrats there is an “opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.”
Bush may be misreading the implicit message of the election, but he is not necessarily misreading the Democrats.
There will be some bi-partisan resistance. 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards looks set, for now, to run Left of Hillary on Iraq. He has denounced the surge and dubbed it the “McCain Doctrine.” And some in the GOP will balk.
But one should not underestimate the level of “bi-partisan” support for a pro-Shiite military surge that aims to return to the original Right Zionist vision for post-invasion Iraq.
Right Zionists like Lieberman and McCain will be touted as “centrists” and “moderates”, even as they gladly inherit the war–surge and all–from President Bush.
Dangerous times, these.
John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he’s helped throw a lot of people into it with:
– his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,
– his support for illegal aliens,
– his vote for MFN-China
but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?
well, he voted for them too
About the only think you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much time running for president that he didnt have time to do more damage as senator
I came across your blog after reading a comment on Juan Cole’s website and then I got to read your article on ZNet. I must say that it is one of the best analyses that I have read on the forces and interests animating US Iraq policy. My own conclusions were somewhat similar but there were gaps, which thankfully have been plugged after reading the passages from Wurmser’s book that you quote in your article. Great job. I’ll be visiting often.
I was wondering if you have read the following commentary by Sidney Blumenthal in which he reveals the paper (by an AEI neocon) which Bush intends to use as his new Iraq strategy:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/12/inside_bushs_iraq_escalation_p.html