“Delusional” and “incompetent” seem to be the consensus description of Bush’s policy in Iraq. This description is dangerous and naïve. First, “delusional” refers to a psychotic state, in which someone cannot function socially in any normative sense; George W. Bush may be, although it would be charitable to describe him so, “wrongheaded,” but he certainly by no means is “delusional;” Bush, without question, however, is “incompetent,” but it in no way follows that his policies are being conducted “incompetently” by his selected underlings.
Bush is not delusional, and his generals, and, far more importantly, his propaganda team (Snow, Fox News, The Weekly Standard, NBC, etc.) are not incompetent. Therefore, what is the real reason for the “surge?” Bush has stated rather straightforwardly his reason for the surge. Why he has chosen now to tell, at least partly, the truth for his upcoming action in Iraq is a subject for another time. On at least two occasions, he has stated quite clearly that he wants to pass on the war against terrorism to his predecessors. Both in his interview with PBS, shortly after his “surge” speech, and in the State of the Union speech, Bush told his audience of his intention to make sure his struggle against terrorism is continued by the next administration. Thus, he is protecting his legacy; and will attack as traitorous the next administration if it reverses his disastrous and criminal policies in Iraq and, possibly, Iran.
But, if the protection of his legacy is his real concern now, why the increase in the number of troops? Why not simply allow things to continue on the present course for the next 1 ½ years? After all, the 2008 presidential race will be taking up most of the space of public debate. The answer is a quite simple military one. When a certain number of one’s force is killed, they must be replaced, in order to maintain one’s presence in the field. Bush must send more troops to replace those killed. If this replacement is not done, the level of violence cannot be continued so that Bush can claim that he is handing over a legacy of success in the war on terrorism. But surely, you are thinking, Bush won't be able to get away with claiming a success in Iraq. Most assuredly he will be able to do exactly this. You may be very sure the mainstream media will not only allow him to do this, but will commit as much money and time as necessary to help him maintain this fiction.
But wait. Bush and his generals tell us that only a few more than 3,000 troops have been killed. And they would not lie about this surely sacrosanct statistic. Would not lie about? Bush will lie about anything. The American public is not allowed to see the daily war. In contrast to Vietnam, this war is not being fought “in the living room.” The complete muzzling of the press (mostly with the concurrence of the press) makes it impossible for the American people to make realistic appraisal about the conduct of the war or an accurate assessment of Bush’s claim of U.S. deaths in Iraq. It would be interesting to investigate on what basis the public made its decision to vote against the war in November of 2006.
Neil Sheehan wrote a book about Vietnam called “A Bright and Shining Lie...” Bush, Cheney, et al. have told many lies about Iraq. The ugliest and dirtiest lie, however, will be their lie about the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. 21,500 troops are not being “surged” to Iraq, they are being sent as reinforcements to replace at least 10,000 dead Americans.
