Bush's Iraq strategy echoes the failures in Vietnam War/Bush not swayed by Iraq reality

Bush's Iraq strategy echoes the failures in Vietnam War
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
September 12, 2007


I was 11. I lived in Puerto Rico and was unable to understand why our horrible president wanted to send my brother to a country called Vietnam. All I knew was people were sent there to die.

President Lyndon B. Johnson recalled his top general in Vietnam to defend the war against criticism from Congress. There, William Westmoreland said the military had reached a point where "the end begins to come into view." There would be "light at the end of the tunnel," but "mopping up the enemy" might take two more years. I could not understand there was this thing called a "domino theory," and if Vietnam fell, it would be the "end of our world as we knew it."

It would be five years and 58,000 dead American soldiers later that Richard Nixon proclaimed "peace with honor." As an adult, I know what that means: We lost Vietnam and the world did not end.

Gen. David Petraeus gives the disturbing impression that he, too, is more focused on Washington than the unfolding disaster in Iraq. His description of the war sounds more like a football game. That serves neither U.S. nor Iraqi interests. Bush is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy. He frequently refers to the escalation of American forces last January as Petraeus' strategy, as if it were not his own creation. In effect, he is hiding behind his general.

Who is the decider? Who is the commander in chief?

Bush should not be allowed to pass on his responsibility one more time and conceal the facts from the American people.

Carlos T. Mock, M.D., Uptown

Bush not swayed by Iraq reality
ANDREW GREELEY agreel@aol.com
Copyright by the Chicago Sun-Times
September 12, 2007

Here's the question that senators ought to have asked General Petraeus (the current Colin Powell):
Could you give us a rough estimate, general, of how many more American men and women will die in Iraq? Not a precise figure, just an approximation?

That is an important question. Chicago political guru Don Rose has pointed out that Bush's war in Iraq has caused the deaths of more Americans than died in the Sept. 11 attacks and probably more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein killed. What is the point of all this slaughter?

This is a strange week in America. As we pass the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Bush is still telling us that the Iraq war can be won, that we can achieve victory, that we can create a democratic Iraq. The neocons who created the war are telling us that the "surge" in Iraq has "worked," that the tide has turned, that we see light at the end of the tunnel (well, they don't say that, but it's the same idea). The work of the Iraq Study Group could be cast aside, the grim news in the recent National Intelligence Report can be dismissed, the reports of the Government Accountability Office on the "guidelines" for the Iraqi government were "pessimistic;" Marine Gen. James Jones' reports on the state of the Iraqi police and army did not include August.

All of these attempts to advocate surrender in Iraq (as the TV ads call it) were now irrelevant. General Petraeus had come home from Iraq with the news that the the president's new strategy had worked, as the president knew he would. Petraeus was the ultimate standard. No one else. No other report mattered. Now, since the president had a mandate to continue his optimism, victory in Iraq would be achieved.

The photo opportunity in Anbar province was designed to persuade the military and the American people that he was right to be confident, to be dead certain. That's how you should lead, how you would win. That the surge was originally sold as providing time for the Iraqi government to take charge -- and clearly they had not -- was unimportant in the face of Petraeus's endorsement of the success of the surge.

This might be a good week to read Robert Draper's book Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. Draper is sympathetic to Bush and tries to be favorable, but he wants to understand how the president can be so "dead certain" about everything. It is a question many Americans are asking.

The first interview with Draper occurs after the report of the Iraq Study Group. The president is uneasy. He can't accept what the group wants because that would betray his lack of certainty. Unless he displayed confidence that we would win, the troops and their leaders would lose confidence. He was confident he could stop drinking, never hesitated for a moment. He was confident he would win the Texas gubernatorial race. He never doubted for a moment that he would win both presidential elections. That's why he won. Confidence confirms itself. Similarly with Iraq, if he continued to be optimistic about victory, we would indeed win. Will the American public buy into this hype, so much like that which came before the invasion of Iraq? In the short run, maybe. In the long run . . .