The Fall Guy
Published by BG on Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 8:44 AM.Maryland Republican Representative Wayne Gilchrest sat down with Reason Magazine (a Libertarian publication to which I subscribe - more Hayek than Hillary in any given issue, that's for sure) for an interview. Well worth reading all the way through, but here's a clip:
Reason Magazine - The Lonely Guy
After hearing of yesterday's meeting between 11 GOP Congressmen and the President, I actually got a little excited. Maybe Congress will come around, maybe they'll force feed him some sensible deadlines, and maybe there can be some success in renegotiating the terms of this war.
The more I thought about it, though, the more staged this whole event likely was.
The talking point that Gilchrest mentions, that we should "listen to the generals," is a designed two-purpose wedge. The first prong is to reinforce the "support the troops" mentality, where the Noble Military should not be denigrated by traitorous citizens. The second, however, is to allow the administration to triangulate themselves away from responsibility if/when accountability for the errors made arrives.
Big "if" by the way.
What do you think that "War Czar" thing was all about? If the President is "the Commander-in-Chief," then why would there need to be a bureaucrat sitting between his office and the military's top brass?
(If you think the answer to that question is "oversight," then I'd like to come to your home and laugh heartily at the wonder of your optimism.)
If I had to connect the dots between the GOP closed-door meeting with the President yesterday, the "War Czar" thing, and all the comments about Petraeus' plan needing a chance to work, it's all specifically designed to allow for the perception that the party is changing direction, when, in fact, it continues to stay the course.
Obviously, there hasn't been a War Czar brought on board as of yet, and who knows if they're still exploring the possibility, but with or without someone in that role, here's what's going to happen: The President takes the very sober and very serious meeting with (largely junior, which is an interesting enough fact standing on its own) the Congressmen and comes to the conclusion that he's willing to allow a GOP-framed supplemental bill with non-binding benchmarks (but no timelines) be submitted with a promise of no veto. In this effort, he effectively triangulates the Democratic leadership farther to the right than they'd like, but their spinelessness and unwillingness to look like they're not "supporting the troops" (whatever the hell that means this week) pushes them into granting what is, effectively, another blank check.
Summer passes, early fall, and whether or not the non-binding benchmarks fall into place, the President continues to talk about the military and our noble troops and keeps tying General Petraeus to the success of the surge (coughFrederickKagancough). If (when) the surge fails, Petraeus is the fall guy, and President Bush can push the blame squarely on his shoulders, as he delivered what the American people wanted, by signing a bill with non-binding benchmarks and appearing to adhere to some portion of the terms. If, by some freak chance, the surge succeeds, then the President doesn't need a fall guy.
Point is, these machinations are designed to allow the Republican Party to distance themselves from the war, trying to create the perception that it's bad planning and execution by the military that caused us to lose. Bush fires Petraeus, he's got his fall guy and a news cycle rife with "unnamed sources within the administration" telling Russert and David Gregory that the President regrets being misled by General Petraeus, and now we're in a situation we just can't pull the troops out of because we can't let the situation deteriorate any further, or al-Qaeda will follow us home and it'll be all Dave Petraeus' fault.
Obviously, if these GOP Congressmen were serious about repudiating Bush's war policies, they'd work with the Democratic leadership instead of the White House. We'll see what happens from here.
Reason Magazine - The Lonely Guy
Reason: Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) said that Gen. Petraeus's appearance in Washington was political, meant to pump up support for the war more than inform the Congress. Is he right?
Gilchrest: I appreciate the fact that the general came here. I met Gen. Petraeus in Mosul and in Baghdad. I have a great deal of respect and I'm glad he came and glad he had a dialogue. And he also said here, again, clearly, that there's no military victory in Iraq, that it has to be a political solution. Look, Gen. Petraeus is a general taking orders from his commander-in-chief. He doesn't make policy. It is not his responsibility to say whether or not we're succeeding. The White House has to make that clarification. And for them to say "We're doing what the generals say" is irresponsible; it's just foreclosing their constitutional responsibilities. Gen. Petraeus can carry out the best tactics in the world but unless the overall strategy is well thought out he can never be successful. It always irritates me when they say "We're going to listen to the generals." They haven't listened to the generals from day one.
After hearing of yesterday's meeting between 11 GOP Congressmen and the President, I actually got a little excited. Maybe Congress will come around, maybe they'll force feed him some sensible deadlines, and maybe there can be some success in renegotiating the terms of this war.
The more I thought about it, though, the more staged this whole event likely was.
The talking point that Gilchrest mentions, that we should "listen to the generals," is a designed two-purpose wedge. The first prong is to reinforce the "support the troops" mentality, where the Noble Military should not be denigrated by traitorous citizens. The second, however, is to allow the administration to triangulate themselves away from responsibility if/when accountability for the errors made arrives.
Big "if" by the way.
What do you think that "War Czar" thing was all about? If the President is "the Commander-in-Chief," then why would there need to be a bureaucrat sitting between his office and the military's top brass?
(If you think the answer to that question is "oversight," then I'd like to come to your home and laugh heartily at the wonder of your optimism.)
If I had to connect the dots between the GOP closed-door meeting with the President yesterday, the "War Czar" thing, and all the comments about Petraeus' plan needing a chance to work, it's all specifically designed to allow for the perception that the party is changing direction, when, in fact, it continues to stay the course.
Obviously, there hasn't been a War Czar brought on board as of yet, and who knows if they're still exploring the possibility, but with or without someone in that role, here's what's going to happen: The President takes the very sober and very serious meeting with (largely junior, which is an interesting enough fact standing on its own) the Congressmen and comes to the conclusion that he's willing to allow a GOP-framed supplemental bill with non-binding benchmarks (but no timelines) be submitted with a promise of no veto. In this effort, he effectively triangulates the Democratic leadership farther to the right than they'd like, but their spinelessness and unwillingness to look like they're not "supporting the troops" (whatever the hell that means this week) pushes them into granting what is, effectively, another blank check.
Summer passes, early fall, and whether or not the non-binding benchmarks fall into place, the President continues to talk about the military and our noble troops and keeps tying General Petraeus to the success of the surge (coughFrederickKagancough). If (when) the surge fails, Petraeus is the fall guy, and President Bush can push the blame squarely on his shoulders, as he delivered what the American people wanted, by signing a bill with non-binding benchmarks and appearing to adhere to some portion of the terms. If, by some freak chance, the surge succeeds, then the President doesn't need a fall guy.
Point is, these machinations are designed to allow the Republican Party to distance themselves from the war, trying to create the perception that it's bad planning and execution by the military that caused us to lose. Bush fires Petraeus, he's got his fall guy and a news cycle rife with "unnamed sources within the administration" telling Russert and David Gregory that the President regrets being misled by General Petraeus, and now we're in a situation we just can't pull the troops out of because we can't let the situation deteriorate any further, or al-Qaeda will follow us home and it'll be all Dave Petraeus' fault.
Obviously, if these GOP Congressmen were serious about repudiating Bush's war policies, they'd work with the Democratic leadership instead of the White House. We'll see what happens from here.
Powered by ScribeFire.
