Democrats: Divided but Not Conquered

The so-called anti-war left (Can 60-70% of U.S. citizens really be called "the left"? If only that were true!) are falling into a trap set by the White House. By using one of the oldest tricks in the book of political trickery Bush has managed, for the moment at least, to divide but hopefully not conquer the Democrats. The majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq and right now the Democrats are leading the effort against the President who for whatever reason doesn't seem to be in any hurry to end the war. By vetoing legislation that would end the war sooner in favor of his own that does little but continue the war funding he has effectively turned every American who wants the fighting to stop against the very group who is trying to do just that.

I admit I couldn't believe it when I heard that the Democrats were sending Bush legislation that gave in to his demands. It took me a while to really comprehend what was happening and obviously I wasn't alone. But I slowly realized that as Jonathan Alter said (on Keith Olbermann, I think) the "Democrats disagree over tactics but not the goal" and that "capitulation was unavoidable".

I think the Democrats who voted for bill probably felt that they were better off choosing to fight the battles they had a chance of winning and it was clear they weren't going to win this one. There isn't much hope of forcing Bush to sign a bill that included timelines because:
1) He doesn't want to be seen as giving into the Democrats
2) He wants to keep his options open
3) He wants to divide the Democrats so they will be less effective in ganging up on him.

Agreeing to include a timeline in a bill, even one that was nonbinding would put him in the position of having to answer to the Congress and the media. The press would criticize him now and say he caved into the Democrats just like they are now criticizing the Democrats for caving into Bush. And if, when the time came, the conditions of the deadline were met by the Iraqis and our military, Bush would be in the awkward position of having to either pullout and be seen as doing the bidding of the Democrats or if, as many people believe he wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely, be criticized for not leaving.

However, Bush has realized that while he can avoid caving into the Democrats, he has to at least pretend to give into the polls and public opinion. He did agree to the inclusion of nonbinding benchmarks in the recent legislation; General Petraeus has an unofficial deadline (see April 24, 2007 post ) of September 2007, and now word has it that the White House is preparing a plan, another Plan B, that includes a 50% troop reduction in 2008. And the president in his news conference on Thursday, 05/24/07, admitted that he was implementing some of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton (Iran Study Group) report.

By not being beholden to the Democrats and implementing his own plan he can keep his options open but still claim to be following a new direction. He can claim that he's leaving it up to the generals so they won't be at the mercy of a micro-managing Congress. And it's possible, though I have no proof, there was some back room dealing with Republicans who told him that they wouldn't vote with Democrats this time if the he eased up a bit on his hard line war stance and implemented at least part of the Baker Hamilton report.

In addition, Bush doesn't want Democrats to get credit for anything. He's hedging his bets: when pulling out looks like a good thing politically as it does now he wants to be seen as the one engineering the pullout not the Democrats. If and when the pullout looks like a bad thing -- like maybe if the surge is actually successful (which is possible with Petraeus who is very smart and unlike a lot of generals seems to be actually able to translate strategy into a tactical reality that works) he wants to be able to take credit for that as well. This is the way of all successful managers -- to try to take credit for whatever is successful whether it was their idea or not. That's one way the ruthless gain and remain in power.

Bush is trying to make Democrats look bad anyway he can think of. By giving in to them he would be relinquishing to them a certain amount of his own power. By implementing or at least appearing to implement some of the Baker-Hamilton plan it makes him look like he really is, despite criticism to the contrary, willing to compromise and at the same time allows him to criticize the efforts of the Democratic led Congress to end the war.

According to the Washington Post 05/27/07: "Another Senate war bill, expected to be introduced early next month, would adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations as official policy.... The legislation, which has gained bipartisan backing, would establish conditions for a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and require specific steps to be taken by the Iraqi government. The list is similar to the benchmarks in the funding bill, but more detailed in its requirements." And in September, Republicans will be re-evaluating their positions on the war when General Petraeus gives his progress report on the Surge. So the Congress will have more opportunities to outwit Bush but it obviously isn't going to be easy without the votes in the Senate to override his veto.

However there is an interesting opinion piece by Larry C. Johnson , Who's On First in Iraq - The Real Plan?, posted 05/24/07 on the Atlantic Free Press website where he discusses two different White House plans for Iraq that were reported on by the Washington Post. Possible infighting in the White House? One can only hope.