Inside Bush’s Surge
By Dan Froomkin
It’s not exactly news that President Bush dismisses the advice of his military commanders when it doesn’t suit him — and did so, most notably, when he ordered a surge in troops to Iraq early last year over the intense objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his top commanders in the region.
Bob Woodward’s new book calls renewed attention to Bush’s problematic decision-making style, but leaves unanswered some key questions. Among them: Were Bush’s motivations in pushing through the surge noble or self-serving? And was he, ultimately, right or wrong to do so?
A lot rests on the answer to those questions — maybe even the November election. And although Woodward doesn’t appear to be quite ready to weigh in, he does provide some hints. He accuses Bush of deception and disengagement. He airs top military leaders’ well-founded concerns that the surge would do enormous damage to the long-term fighting ability of the armed forces. And he argues that the surge is far from the sole reason for the reduction in violence in Iraq.
He also raises the distinct possibility that domestic political factors were a big factor: He quotes Bush telling soon-to-be-ousted Central Command commander Gen. John P. Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December that the surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence."
But you could also reasonably read Woodward’s book as primarily a complaint that it took Bush so long to act, rather than that he did the wrong thing. Woodward is much more critical of the process than of the decision.
…Then Woodward describes how Bush in January 2007 "went to Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. [Chairman Peter] Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn’t really exist under the Army’s current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history."
Said Bush: "The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to — by the way, that’s what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don’t want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: ‘This won’t work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.’ And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, ‘Mr. President, it’s not going to work until — unless we support — provide more troops.’"
Here’s White House press secretary Dana Perino at yesterday’s briefing: "I think that the surge is no doubt one of the most important foreign policy and military decisions that have been made in a generation. And it was fundamental to the change that we have seen today in Iraq. We are working now to cement those gains and to be able to continue to watch Iraq evolve into a country that can sustain, govern and defend itself…
Unfortunately, the library of books that have hit the market documenting Bush’s ineptness and deciet as a cammander-in-chief really don’t have much impact on the general populace. They’re read by people who already know in their hearts that George Bush has been the worst President in our history, but they have minimal effects on the people whose denial was responsible for his re-election in 2004 and the continued popularity of the Republican Mythology.
I agree with your description of a Bob Woodward interview. He certainly doesn’t use drama to promote his books. I read his last book “State of Denial” and he is a much better writer than interviewee.