Failure = Success (The Real New Way Forward)

Jan 10, 2006

The United States has lost the war in Iraq. Whether it be six months from now or five years, the outcome will be exactly the same. A remnant of US forces will hastily abandon Baghdad's Green Zone, and an Iranian satelite state will take systematic revenge on its Suni minority. An unstable Middle East will become more unstable by an order of magnitude. For the Bush administration, however, this is not a foreign policy problem, a military problem, or even a national security problem. It is a domestic, political problem to be managed through the techniques of modern public relations. From the perspective of longterm management of public opinion, a shortterm escalation of the conflict in Iraq makes sense. The "surge" is not intended to stem the violence in Iraq and it will not. The real aim of the "surge" is to shorten the GOP's years in the political wilderness. Find out how below the fold.

First some background. Start with this image: Saigon 1975, helicopters taking off from the roof of the US Embassy. The Vietnam War had become the Republican's war, and its ignominious end came during the tenure of an unelected Republican president who came to office amid a constitutional crisis and unprecedented scandal. The GOP could reasonably anticipate a generation as a minority party, and the business interests represented by the GOP rightly feared a return to economic democracy represented by the resurgent Democrats.

In fact, the GOP was back in the White House by 1981. Chalk it up to economic turmoil and good public relations. The mid-1970s marked the peak of domestic oil production as domestic consumption continured to grow at an exponential rate. The difference had to be made up for by imports, particularly from the Middle East. The new petroleum supplies did not come without a cost, and by the late 1970s the economy was still reeling from the effects of the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Add to that inflation resulting from war debts, and the situation became increasingly bleak. Between 1977 and 1980 the so-called misery index, a figure calculated by adding inflation and unemployment, rose to a postwar high of 16.27. Then American diplomats were taken hostage in Iran as a result of longstanding grievances regarding US petrodiplomacy. "What went wrong with Vietnam?" became a subiteration of the larger question of what had gone wrong with America.

Enter a cheerful huckster named Ronald Reagan who once told the Fresno Bee:

It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and be home by Christmas. (1964)

Slowly a new narrative began to emerge, starting with the Vietnam. The United States was the greatest and most powerful nation ever, and the reason that it didn't succeed in Vietnam was because it was not allowed to succeed. the ordinary, decent people of America were sold out by the negativity of the Left. Dale Carnegie was right, and Herbert Marcuse was wrong. Here is a recent (2004) version of the trope:

There are two basic attitudes toward American foreign policy: the Reagan Way and the Vietnam Syndrome. Adherents to the Reagan Way believe in the efficacy and goodness of American power. Sufferers of the Vietnam Syndrome believe American power is tainted with corruption and arrogance and is doomed to failure. These two broad visions have informed the U.S. foreign policy debate, from Vietnam to the war on terror today. Rich Lowry, National Review June 8, 2004

So much for background. Now to deliver on my IOU from above the fold. Let's look at the problem the way Karl Rove would. The GOP has cemented itself to an unpopular and unwinnable war undertaken on false pretenses. The situation is even worse than it was for Nixon and Ford in the '70s who could at least trace their war's origins to at least one Democratic administration. George Bush is in the last two years of his presidency, is wildly unpopular, and Democrats have achieved majorities in both the House and Senate. Query: How does the GOP come back?

Answer: Appear to be making an effort to win the unwinnable war. Surge the forces. Five to seven years from now, once memories fade and the country is paying down its war debt and struggling with a wrecked economy and dwindling peroleum reserves, point a finger back at the Democrats. Say, "We could have won in Iraq. We could have paved it over, painted parking stripes on it, and been home for Christmas but for the negativity of the Left. Once again they sold out the ordinary, decent folk of America. President Bush proposed a New Way Forward, but all the Democrats wanted to do was blame America first."

Perhaps the reader will be tempted to think this is "too cynical" or "some kind of conspiracy theory." To this thre are to responses. First, the GOP was willing to lie to get the country to go to war and succeeded primarily because decent people couldn't imagine them doing such a thing. Is it any less likely that they would design their "New Way Forward" as a domestic, political strategy aimed at minimizing the consequences of their failed policy? Second, from a diplomatic and military perspective the whole idea of a "surge" is irrational. Could it be that we're viewing it from the wrong perspective? Is the "surge" really domestic politics pursued by other means?

--By Stagarite