Finally, a flip flop we can all agree on.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.
Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.
Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.
The President Explains Why Timetables For Withdrawal Are Bad Strategy. PRES. BUSH: "Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies - that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder - and invite new attacks on America." (President Bush, Remarks On The War On Terror, Annapolis, MD, 11/30/05)
I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.
So has the gravity of the situation, now that we're in October finally rung his bell? As recently as March, Bush was committed to passing the Iraq legacy on to future Presidents (and or Barney). Seems almost criminal watching a man who critcized Vietnam as a "political war" use Iraq and the GWOT as a tool to manipulate not just the nation but the men and women dying for his cause.
What, besides a mid-term election where the party in power stands to lose much could cause Bush to cease to use "Stay the Course"? Too much stupidity and arrogance, perhaps? Maybe it's the potential for a Congressional audit. Could be the Republican tendency to eat their young and their weak. Visions of a hobbled waterfowl?
“Because it left the wrong impression about what was going on.’’ Snow said today. “And it allowed critics to say, well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is, when, in fact, it's just the opposite. The president is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory, but he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure.’’ In other words, the president is committed to adjusting his tactics as necessary.
So what is the president saying about the war these days?
“We will stay in Iraq’’ – which is what he said as recently as Friday.
C'est la guerre.