Fred Barnes writes that President Bush is still pro-victory:
Rather than change the strategy in Iraq, he changed the strategist. This is not the first step in a disguised retreat from Iraq, Bush aides insist, nor does it represent a turnover of national security policy to the "realists," as opposed to an idealist like Bush, who ran foreign affairs under Bush's father. The president told Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, the goal is still to create a stable democratic Iraq that can defend itself--in other words, victory.
Barnes thinks that Rumsfeld was sacrificed in order to win the war. I wrote when Rumsfeld was fired that this is acceptable if true. Rumsfeld is no more immune from being sacrificed for victory than any soldier on patrol in Iraq. I worry his departure just whets the appetite for further retreat but we shall see, I guess.
This is all good if true. And just as I noted here, President Bush is far more relevant following the opposition party's Congressional victory than President Clinton was after 1994. Being commander-in-chief while we are at war automatically gives President Bush far more power and influence.
So remember that there is but one proper response to those calling for our retreat and surrender over Iraq.
I think we are broadly speaking on the correct course in Iraq--training Iraqis to take over the fight. The key is figuring out how to get there in the face of enemy attacks and sectarian violence.
So let's get that blueprint for victory out there that confirms the basic strategy with enough new buzz words to satisfy the desire for change. We don't want our troops left out there wondering if they are fighting for victory or whether they should start thinking about just coming home in one piece.
UPDATE: Austin Bay makes me feel better. He outlines reports of what I hope is true about the Baker commission:
What Baker and Hamilton provide is political cover for Democrats. Our plan has been a sound one — build Iraqi security and political institutions to the point US and coalition forces move to “strategic overwatch.” ...
If we are lucky, the Baker-Hamilton magic show will drop a scarf over the top hat and with a the ”poof” of a New York Times headline produce a “unifying” policy of words that will let the Democrats join the war, despite the howls of their blogosphere nutsroots.
Then the military will continue to do what it’s been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Iraqi government will continue to learn by doing — and in the ordeal of war that will mean learn by bleeding, suffering, and sweating.
We're fighting the war correctly. We just need to provide enough cover for the less bitter opponents of the war to embrace the "new and improved" strategy.
Ya do what ya gotta do.
