Fred Barnes, notable for his access to the Bush White House, has a behind the scenes look at the development of the Surge strategy. From the sound of it, Bush was the only major figure in favor of a troop increase, save for the predictably hawkish (and God bless him for it) Dick Cheney.
It appears that the old adage about news becoming rosier as it reaches the chain of command’s top was true for the situation on the ground in Iraq during 2005 and 2006. While those who have opposed the Iraq mission from the beginning are quick to say that Bush lives in a dream world, Barnes’ article does a great deal to dispel this notion by illustrating how involved and committed the President was to victory in Iraq, even as his domestic support for the war continued to fall. George Bush made a real effort to find a new strategy for Iraq when he decided that a change was needed. He didn’t accept what those around him advised, instead he held informal sessions with a variety of national security advisors and planners who shared his unease with just ‘continuing the course’.
It would make sense for those who chided Bush for not being flexible enough to now grant him a bit of slack given not only the success of the Surge but his now revealed level of commitment to the operation behind the scenes, which was not simply a vague desire to continue to war for his own legacy, but to prove that the toils of the American Armed Forces and the national security interests of the United States were served well by Saddam’s removal. Acknowledgement of the President’s depth of commitment will of course never come from those who despise George Bush, much as they have continued to dismiss the Surge’s success despite the overwhelming body of evidence that it has been a military success. I would hope that it is these sorts of behind the scenes tales that becomes more well known over time as history writes about the George W. Bush White House, as he will never get a fair shake from the 50% of the country today who are still fuming about the 2000 election.
Other telling aspects of Barnes’ article include Condoleezza’s endorsement of a graceful withdraw from Iraq instead of the headstrong commitment to win that Bush favored. The same limpwristed mindset can be attributed to most well-known members of the State department throughout its history, and it is sad to see someone like Condoleezza, who was an eloquent advocate of the President during her stint as the NSA, endorse such strategies. The same disappointment can be found in her dealings with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. To be fair, Rumsfeld was also against the Surge strategy, and appears to have been in the way of its consideration during his term as Secretary of Defense.
All in all, it was Bush’s shock and determination following the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque that seems to have pushed through the Surge, and the resulting turning of the tide in Iraq. Take a few minutes to read the article for yourself and see if you reach the same conclusions.
