International Herald Tribune Editorial - Can Bush forestall defeat?

International Herald Tribune Editorial - Can Bush forestall defeat?
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
William Pfaff Tribune Media Services

PARIS: President George W. Bush's speech on expanding the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was the most sober and reasonable speech that he has given since taking office.

The inflated rhetoric and unbelievable claims of progress in dealing with the insurrection were gone, although there was a fleeting reference to an old threat: Unless the terrorists are routed in Iraq they will attack Americans in the streets of San Francisco or Des Moines.

Another Karl Rove touch was the suggestion, made during the administration's advance touting of the speech, that the "long" war will go on for at least another two years. Of course by then a new administration will have taken office.

It makes sense to leave the problem of getting out of Iraq to the next president. And of course, if it is a Democratic administration, the Republicans could then pillory it for betraying the troops, giving in to terrorism, and allowing America's defeat.

The most ambiguous and troubling comment of Bush's speech was the following: "We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

This can be read as a coded statement of preparations to attack Iran, probably with Israel interposed. Israel and its friends have been pressing for such an attack, or threatening that Israel might make such an attack itself.

Since Israel's attack on Lebanon during the summer, which backfired by demonstrating the effectiveness of Hezbollah guerrilla tactics, the Israeli public is said to be suffering an "existential" crisis.

Israel's propaganda campaign against Iran, accusing it of developing nuclear weapons, was originally meant to convince the American public that the United States should go to war against Iran to eliminate its power to threaten Israel. This too may have backfired, convincing the Israeli public itself that Israel is in greater danger than is actually the case.

John Negroponte, who has just left the post of director of all U.S. intelligence, has said to the NBC television network that expert opinion in the U.S. estimates that any Iranian nuclear weapon is years away, "probably into the next decade." However, in the Israeli public's present state of mind — as Israelis witness U.S. popular opinion turn against the Iraq war, and Bush admits major errors in Iraq and announces a dramatic and controversial change in strategy — "existential" anxiety is no surprise.

Until now, the huge political downside, and danger to American forces and interests in the region, of an attack on Iran has made most American observers believe that even the Bush administration would reject an Iran attack as unacceptably reckless.

On the other hand, Bush surely understands that the modest troop escalation and tactical changes he announced on Wednesday have virtually no chance of providing the "victory" of Iraqi democracy he needs in order to prevent his presidency from ending as a catastrophic failure that leaves the Middle East in profound crisis.

He has proven to be a gambler. To have invaded Iraq on the mass-destruction alarms and promises of military success, provided by Washington neoconservative amateurs, and by ignoring the professional assessments of CIA and State Department bureaucracies, he made an incredible gamble, which has gone wrong for the predicted reasons.

There are many objections to be made to bureaucracies, but one thing they do is guard an administration against making foolish mistakes.

Bush is gambling again with the "surge" scheme, once again promoted by military amateurs at the American Enterprise Institute and rejected by the responsible military commanders in Baghdad, whom Bush, accordingly, has had to replace.

If this plan doesn't give early signs of working, the president's back will be against the wall.

Fleet units have been ordered to the Gulf, together with troops not part of the Iraq reinforcement. An admiral has been named theater commander. The Israelis are ready to go.

The president seemed uncharacteristically nervous as he gave his speech on Wednesday. He knows that the game is not over.