BCT Editorial – 8/13/08

This page was last updated on August 13, 2008.

Buck passer; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 13, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Don’t expect Bush to admit to mistakes make regarding Iraq.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The success of the surge in Iraq illustrates what might have been if the Bush administration had followed the Powell Doctrine.”

[RWC] I’m confused. Previous editorials gave credit for progress over the last 18 months to the “Sunni awakening,” Iran, and Muqtada al-Sadr. So which is it? Was the surge successful or did our enemies deserve the credit?

As a reminder, the Times previously told us the surge wouldn’t work (here, here, here, here, here). When Gen. Petraeus reported the surge was having success, the Times told us he was “playing a numbers game.” You won’t find any of that mentioned in this editorial.

Finally, the editorial assumes the governing factor was the number of troops. The editorial conveniently omits the fact that the surge was also about evolving tactic changes. We’ll never know, but more troops by themselves may have made no difference without the change in tactics.

“The number of civilian and military deaths is down, and the nation is relatively stable. That was never more apparent than in anti-U.S. Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s order over the weekend for most of his militia to put down their arms.

“Another sign of progress, since artificial timelines for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq are taboo in the Bush administration, is that the Iraqi government and the White House are working on a ‘general time horizon’ for a U.S. departure.

“While this progress is welcome, it also took far too long to make it to this point.

“If the Bush administration, especially former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had done a better job of planning for the occupation of Iraq, these events could have been taking place years ago.”

[RWC] Were mistakes made? Of course. Name a war in which that wasn’t the case. Unfortunately, wars aren’t like episodes of “Mission: Impossible.”

“In a miscalculation that has cost more than 3,000 Americans lives and seen many thousands more wounded and maimed, as well as the pain and suffering of innocent Iraqis, Rumseld [sic] jettisoned the so-called Powell Doctrine, which called for the United States to use overwhelming force to conquer and control an enemy, in favor of a small invasion force that was not adequate to secure the country.”

[RWC] You’d think the editorial author could get a little bit closer to the actual casualty figures. The 3,000 figure is over 19 months old and we hit 4,000 over four months ago. As of August 12^th, 4,142 American servicemen lost their lives and 13,453 were wounded and didn’t return to duty. Though one is too many, in July we had the fewest deaths (5 combat, 6 non-combat) since the beginning of the war.

“It took the Bush White House — and Rumsfeld’s departure from the Pentagon — years to rectify this wrong and increase U.S. troop presence.”

[RWC] Remember, as noted above, the Times told us numerous times this wouldn’t work.

“Another post-invasion blunder was the dissolution of the Iraqi army, one of that nation’s few stabilizing forces, shortly after the invasion.”

[RWC] As a reminder, this “stabilizing force” ran for the hills and dumped their uniforms long before it was dissolved.

“The importance of this mistake cannot be underestimated. Writing in The Washington Post, Peter Mansoor, who served as Gen. David Petraeus’s executive officer in Iraq from February 2007 to May of this year, cited the expansion of Iraqi forces, as well as their growing capability, as a major reason for the success of the surge.”

[RWC] How do we know keeping the Iraq army intact would have been a good thing? Remember, this was the same army that enforced Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror over his country. Equating the current Iraq military with the old Iraq military seems iffy. One army is not the same as the next.

“Don’t expect this president to admit to these mistakes. If anything, he’ll take credit for the success of the surge.”

[RWC] I’m sure there must be exceptions, but President Bush tends to credit others for successful outcomes.

“But that’s to be expected of him. This president is much better at passing the buck when it comes to responsibility than he is at stopping it.”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial didn’t give us any examples of prior buck-passing by President Bush. Why not? I believe the answer is simple. The editorial would have if it could have.