This morning on Fox New Sunday, Bill Kristol said that that the current Iraq strategy of “Iraqification” is “failing” and has been “discredited.” Noting that CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid said he finds “despair” about Iraq when he comes to Washington, Kristol said he was “very worried” that if conditions in Iraq did not improve within 2 to 3 months, “political support will crumble not among Democrats, but among Republicans. Gone.
Now we all know just how wonderful PNAC luminaries such as Kristol have been at predicting anything, but for once I think they just might be onto something. Particularly since Bush's own semi-secret advisor at steerings us smack-dab into Vietnam Redux, Henry Kissinger has already jumped the shark.
Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq.
The Neo-con's 19th nervous breakdown continues in the Washington Post.
..Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress....The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting (Kenneth) Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war....
Some insiders said the White House invited the backlash. "Anytime anyone holds themselves up as holy, they're judged by a different standard," said David Kuo, a former deputy White House director of faith-based initiatives who wrote "Tempting Faith," a book that accused the White House of pandering to Christian conservatives. "And at the end of the day, this was a White House that held itself up as holy."...
And has apparenlty lost it's own Holy War.
And what does Bush's Bestest Brit Buddy Tony Blair say? Iraq has been a "disaster"
Tony Blair has publicly agreed with the opinion that the violence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion has been a disaster.
The UK prime minister was responding to a question by Sir David Frost in an interview on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.
The Liberal Democrats said Mr Blair had finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.
Of course a little piling on from the Left starting with Helen Thomas, doesn't make the picture any prettier.
It's over for them and their big dreams of pre-emptive wars and conquest of the Middle East. If anything, this group has left America weakened by the tragic military misadventure in Iraq. They convinced President Bush it would be a "cakewalk" to invade and occupy Iraq but it has turned out otherwise. Those power-driven ideologues have learned that the price for their dream was high -- too high.
So much for their calamitous "Project for A New American Century," which laid out the agenda to transform several Arab nations to their liking. It also meant sending Americans to kill and die for reasons yet to be explained by the president.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi says ending the War is her Highest Priority.
This morning, I visited our brave men and women at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. It is a place of prayers, of honor, of respect, and reflection. And I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end.
I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq.
This unnecessary pre-emptive war has come at great cost. Nearly 2,900 of our brave troops have lost their lives and more than 21,000 more have suffered lasting wounds. Since the war began, Congress has appropriated more than $350 billion, and the United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the eyes of the world.
I'm beginning to think Ap-IPSOS might have to start polling Laura and Barney soon, everyone else seems to be getting the picture.
"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"
Right Decision? 41% Wrong Decision? 51%
"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"
Keep Troops? 46$ Bring them Home? 48%
"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"
Has Clear Plan? 19% No Clear Plan? 71%
Many had thought that the ouster of Rumself on the day after the election signalled a change in direction on Iraq - but with Gen Abizaid arguing to Congress that we can't add troops, and we can't leave - exactly where does that leave our nation and troops other than being trapped in the cross-fire between Sunni's fearful of Shiite political influence and Shias sick and tired of Sunni violence?
But with Bush recent comments in Vietnam - "We'll succeed unless we quit." - it doesn't exactly look like the Prez is really getting the message of all those beating drums in the distance.
The real irony is that we could have won Iraq. Bringing Peace and Democracy to a region of the world that had been devasted by roving death squads, sectarian and religious violence while combating the influence of Al Qeada is something we've done before... in Bosnia.
Despite years of ethnic cleansing and the growing influence of Muslim Radicals - we the U.S. in equal partnership with Europe and Russian ended the violence. The former killing fields of Bosnia are now a thriving and rich Democracy - thanks largely to President William Jefferson Clinton who had to fight tooth and nail with a Republican Congress to accomplish the mission.
The real question is can a similar solution from the Baker-Hamilton group, involving regional powers such as Syria and Iran, a political accomodation between Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and a credible Force Transition Plan to give the Iraqis their country back fom our ongoing occupation be something that that President Bush can either get behind or most importantly -
My best guess would be... Hell No.
He's going to do nothing be stonewall, completely ignoring the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton just as he's ignored 90% of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Congress will attempt to force the President to comply, he'll fight back and Veto, then they'll fail to override and the War will trundle on, the bodies will pile higher, the blood trail will thicken for the next two years until the next President comes into office and either gets serious about cleaning this mess up with some or simply runs from Iraq like a scared rabbit.
Either option is better than what we have now, but the former is far more desirable than the latter.
The one thing we can count on: is that we'll get neither from Bush.