A big screw up based on false pretences upsets family members, alienates friends and reduces ability to influence people. Defeat is an orphan and tar baby.
Bush is finding this out to his cost and the world's consternation as he frenziedly pursues a “victory” to reverse his sagging reputation and legacy.
The screw up is Iraq. The “victory” sought is to knockout the Taliban in Afghanistan and brow beat the Iranians to surrender through tough talk, brandishing weapons and threatening to unleash the Israelis.
IRAQ SITUATION
Everything that could possibly go wrong in Iraq has. Bush's high water mark was the carefully staged Mission Accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on 1 May 2003.
Since then, things have gone downhill. What was a family quarrel became an open fissure as the US public soured on the seemingly endless war and high casualties.
One upshot was that Democrats won control of Congress last November and on 16 February 2007 the House of Representatives passed a non-
binding resolution --246 to 182 including 17 Republicansopposing Bush's “troop surge” plan to send 21,500 more soldiers to pacify Baghdad.
This deepening strife has caused Bush loyalists to bug out. On 21 February, the Brits announced that its 7,100 troops around Basra would leave by end 2008 in batches, with 3,000 gone by end-2007.
Blair claimed that conditions
there have become stable enough for Iraqis to handle security. Perhaps. But many see the announcement as the final unraveling of the Bush-Blair Iraq entente.
On 22 February, Brit MOD announced that Lt. Harry Windsor (Prince Harry) would go with his unit to Iraq, the first royal to go to war in the ME 800 years after Richard the Lionheart led an English army toward Jerusalem.
Talk about Harry's safety swamped that of Brits role in Iraq. Tim Luckhurst, former editor of Scotsman, suggested that this was Blair's cynical ploy to divert attention from the war. Tony's not lost his touch!
Denmark also announced withdrawal of its contingent of 460 by next August. Tiny Lithuania is considering the same for its 53 soldiers.
When in trouble, create diversions. To take the spotlight off Iraq's unwinnable war, Bush is highlighting US action in Afghanistan to record a “victory” and ratcheting up the nuclear “threat” from Iran.
AFGHANISTAN
To preempt a Taliban spring offensive, US is diverting a brigade (3,200 soldiers) from Baghdad t southern Afghanistan the Brits are
sending another 1,000--to reinforce NATO contingent of American, Brit, Canadian, Danish and Dutch forces. Washington's
annoyed France and Germany refuse to let their soldiers in Afghanistan to fight.
This reinforcement has aroused mixed feelings amongst US allies. The Canadians were hoping to withdraw their 2,600 soldiers based entirely in frontline Kandahar by 2009. Now Canadians are stuck there as long
as Washington keeps its forces. Public support for the war dropped from 55% in March to 35% by late December 2006 after Canada lost 44 soldiers and diplomats last year.
NATO considers itself as good guys, but many Pushtuns see them as a white infidel occupation army. Speaking by satellite phone, senior commander Mullah Dadaullah told Reuters that about 6,000 Talibans are trained and equipped to attack the foreigners once the weather warms up.
So a long hot summer lies ahead in southern Afghanistan. NATO resolve will be tested by the number of casualties taken as that will directly impact public support back home.
With its superior firepower, NATO will probably contain, even lick, the Talibans who, however, may not oblige by launching any serious offensive. NATO may have the watch, but the locals have the time, as Afghans point out. Who lasts longer and delivers is the name of the game.
Afghanistan has embarrassed Italy. On 21 February 2007, a parliamentary vote in Rome over sending troops to Afghanistan and expanding a US military base in Italy led to PM Romano Pridi's resignation.
This reveals the concern festering in Europe over US policy of
extraordinary rendition to pursue terrorists with some European states connivance.
In Italy, the so called Imam Rapito (kidnapped imam) affair led to five Italians including intelligence chief Nicolo Pollari and 26 suspected US CIA agents being indicted. In Germany, the Khaled al-Masri case has revealed German complicity in his rendition and led to arrest warrants issued against 13 CIA officers.
US policy has pissed off even
some strongly pro-US Italians like leading former diplomat Sergio Romano. He believes the US should not have bases on Italian soil, since they may be used to facilitate attacking Iranian targets. The Italian backlash suggests European leaders realize the perils of supporting the Bush administration at this sensitive moment.
The Pakistanis are also upset. US is pressuring Islamabad to do more against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants. Cheney repeated this message, hinting at aid cut-off by Congress, in his hour-long luncheon meeting with Musharraf on 26 February.
Musharraf rejected this call, insisting his forces have already “done the maximum” possible against extremists. Pak-US lovehate relationship appears to be heading toward a tense phase.
ESCALATING TENSION
WITH IRAN
According to US neocon lore (exemplified by Michael Ledeen of American Enterprise Institute), taming unruly Afghanistan is a job for boys. Real men are needed to tackle Tehran. That's why Bush administration has been playing up Iran's so-called “involvement” in Iraq leading to GI deaths.
This effort started in August 2005. Mainstream US media citing
unnamed military and intelligence sources reported interception of an Iranian shipment of “professionally made explosive devices” that would penetrate US armoured vehicles, hinting that the Revolutionary Guards organized this supply on orders of Iran's top leadership
This planted story, warts and all, was repeated on Sunday 18 February 2007 in Baghdad by three unidentified US military
officials at a press briefing echoing Colin Powell's distorted UN presentation of February 2003.
However, their credibility plummeted when General Peter Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated the next day that he didn't know of this briefing and couldn't say for sure that topmost Iranian leadership was complicit in anti-US hostilities in Iraq.
This disclaimer apparently had no impact. On 27 February, the US Iraq command in Baghdad claimed again to have recovered Iranian-supplied weaponry. If at first you don't succeed, try again!
Bush is steadily raising the stakes in this risky game of chicken. He's got two carrier groups (Stennis and Abraham Lincoln) in the Persian Gulf with a third on the way. Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs, thinks some US officials are itching for a fight with Tehran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for." (Newsweek 19 February 2007)
Washington wanting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks corroborates this approach. This is asking Tehran to surrender before negotiations. The proud Iranians reject this.
VP Cheney hinted darkly on 24 February in Australia that the US remained "deeply concerned" about Iran's activities, and that “all options are on the table,"
The 23 February deadline for Iran's compliance with Security Council Resolution of 23 December 2006 calling upon Iran to suspend enrichment has passed. Washington is working on a follow-up UN resolution that will further tighten the screws on Iran in its quest for a regime change.
Tehran's banking on Russia and PRC to thwart the US initiative by dangling lucrative contracts before Moscow and Beijing. It's working to detach the EU from the US because of the unpredictable consequences following any hostilities.
The cover in the 26 February issue of The Economist, a reliable interpreter of US politics, highlights Bush's plight. It shows him in a wheelchair with his whole body swathed in bandages surrounded by probing Democratic and Republican doctors. The lead article is titled Saving the Bush Presidency
US saber-rattling and psy-war-leaking news of Israel seeking Pentagon permission to overfly Iraq to bomb Iran--is reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, when Bush falsely accused
Baghdad of having WMD and links to al-Qaeda.
Is this sordid story being repeated again over Iran? Or will the once bitten Bush administration be twice shy of taking on another unwinnable war that could destabilize the international system perilously?
It's a dangerous way for Bush to carve out a positive legacy.
The author is a free lancer.