Hoagland: "Bush's Vietnam Blunder"

By: Dianne
Published On: 8/24/2007 8:31:17 AM

I know we've already had a heated discussion over Bush's Vietnam/Iraq analogy in another diary but I thought Jim Hoagland's column in today's Washington Post added some new aspects to Bush's featherbrained attempt to sway fence-sitting Republicans to support the war.

Hoagland thought Bush's view of Vietnam's similarity to Iraq was so desperate that he likened it to Nixon's "I'm not a crook" utterance during Watergate investigation.  But what I found really amusing in his opinion piece was that Bush was so fool hearty to bring up Vietnam when Bush himself "...spotlighted once again his own decision to sit out the Vietnam conflict".  Is Bush so out of touch that he doesn't understand what Americans know and think about him and his life history?  Or is he so self-assured that he just doesn't care?

This is how Hoagland sees the war:

...For Americans, the most important comparison will be this one: As Vietnam did, Iraq has become a failure even on its own terms -- whatever those terms are at any given moment.

That is, the administration has constantly shifted its goals in Iraq to avoid accepting failure and blame -- only to see the new goals drift beyond reach each time. Liberation of Iraqis became occupation by Americans, democracy became an unattainable centralized "national unity" government and this year's military surge has become a device for achieving political reconciliation among people who do not want to reconcile.

But his most chilling words from the column--

Some military commanders, CIA agents in Iraq, Republican members of Congress, State Department diplomats and others now make their highest priority the protection of their own reputations, careers and institutions -- the three blend seamlessly into a single overriding ambition in Washington -- for the post-Bush era, which thus draws closer, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The need to protect the White House, the Pentagon and both major political parties from greater Iraq fallout explains much of the blame being dumped on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at this late date -- even though his deficiencies and close links to Iran and Syria were clearly visible when the administration helped install him in the job in 2006. As he has been throughout the Iraq experience, Bush is condemned to play the cards he dealt himself.

A good read and another take at this hellacious situation in Iraq that Bush has cast on the world.


Comments



TPM's take on Hoagland (Dianne - 8/24/2007 9:07:03 AM)
Josh Marshall at TPM liked Hoagland's piece today. too, and sees it this way, which I thought interesting:

And here I think we get back to the root of the matter: We are bigger than Iraq.

By that I do not mean we, as America, are bigger or better than Iraq as a country. I mean that that sum of our national existence is not bound up in what happens there. The country will go on. Whatever happens, we'll recover from it. And whatever might happen, there are things that matter much more to this country's future -- like whether we have a functioning military any more, whether our economy is wrecked, whether this country tears itself apart over this catastrophe. But we'll go on and look back at this and judge what happened.

Not so for the president. For him, this is it. He's not bigger than this. His entire legacy as president is bound up in Iraq. Which is another way of saying that his legacy is pretty clearly an irrecoverable shambles. That is why, as the folly of the enterprise becomes more clear, he must continually puff it up into more and more melodramatic and world-historical dimensions. A century long ideological struggle and the like. For the president a one in a thousand shot at some better outcome is well worth it, no matter what the cost. Because at least that's a one in a thousand shot at not ending his presidency with the crushing verdict history now has in store. It's also worth just letting things keep on going as they are forever because, like Micawber, something better might turn up. Going double or nothing by expanding the war into Iran might be worth it too for the same reason. For him, how can it get worse?

And when you boil all this down what it comes down to is that the president now has very different interests than the country he purports to lead.