Bush Turns To Expert Advisers Who Slam Phased Withdrawal, Advocate Escalation In Iraq
Bush Turns To Expert Advisers Who Slam Phased Withdrawal, Advocate Escalation In Iraq
Yesterday, President Bush solicited the advice of five outside advisers on how to change course in Iraq. The group included Johns Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen; Jack Keane, a retired army chief of staff; Stephen Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey; and Ret. Gen. Wayne Downing.
The Washington Post reported the advisers “shared the White House’s skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group” and “disagreed in particular with the study group’s plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq.” Below is a more detailed analysis of their positions:
ELIOT COHEN
– Critical of ISG Report: “I thought both the process was flawed, and the substance was flawed.” [MTP, 12/10/06]
– In Favor of Escalation: “I would [tell President Bush] in terms of broad strategy, we are clearly at a crossroads…and, honestly, I’d rather win than control the narrative at the moment. …[To ‘win’], I suspect we’re probably talking about 20,000 or 30,000, something along those lines, a much more substantial kind of increase.” [MTP, 12/10/06]
JACK KEANE
– Critical of ISG Report: Gave the ISG report an “F” and said of the report, “I think it is wholly inadequate. It’s a cover story to accept defeat.” [ABC, 12/11/06]
– In Favor of Escalation: “Keane is one of more than 150 experts the study group has interviewed, and he recommends that 40,000 additional U.S. troops be sent to secure Baghdad.” [ABC News, 11/12/06]
STEPHEN BIDDLE
– Critical of ISG report: “Another outside adviser, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the study group seemed to put a higher priority on getting out of Iraq than on stabilizing it.” [McClatchy, 12/12/06]
– Open to Escalation: “If you could get a political deal by saturating Iraq with American troops, then it might make sense to do it even if you do fall to much lower levels afterward. But I haven’t heard anybody put forth an argument about what these troops are going to do while they’re there that will bring that about.” [SF Chron, 12/3/06]
BARRY McCAFFREY
– Critical of ISG Report: “They came up with a political thought but then got to tinkering with tactical ideas that in my view don’t make any sense. … This is a recipe for national humiliation.” [NYT, 12/7/06]
– Opposed to Escalation: “[S]hould we reinforce with more US combat units? I think my answer clearly is no.” [NBC Nightly News, 12/11/06]
WAYNE DOWNING
– No Public Position On ISG Report: “Retired Gen. Wayne Downing…doesn’t appear to have taken a public position on the report.” [McClatchy, 12/12/06]
– Opposed To Escalation: “There is not a military victory. That is not in the cards. … More Americans are not going to solve this problem. In fact, they’re going to make it worse.” [MTP, 11/26/06]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
67 Responses to “Bush Turns To Expert Advisers Who Slam Phased Withdrawal, Advocate Escalation In Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why is Bush soliciting all this advice?
He just needs to sponsor a jingle contest.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:31 pmI think the first ingredient in our recipe for national embarrassment is George W. Bush, who lied to get us into this mess in the first place.
Tool.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:32 pmIts going to cost many more people their lives, but let this idiot keep bucking popular opinion and ignoring facts. He’s concerned about his image or legacy? Let it be one of abject failure that nothing can possibly cure. It is embarassing to us as a nation to have this criminally negligent moron at the helm, but so be it. Makes 2008 that much easier…if there is a world left to live in.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:34 pmLooks like the Decider has found just the nit wits who agree with his decision not to leave Iraq before his term of destruction is complete.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI don’ t know how anyone can be for escalation … look where it got us in Vietnam. If we wanted to put more troops on the ground to make sure we had control of the situation, that should have been done when we invaded! When there was some good will towards us. Now almost all the Iraqi’s either hate or are really mad at Americans and just want our troops out of the country.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:38 pmAnyway, to have an effective escalation, we need many more troops the the max of 50,000 which is being proposed (which we technically don’t have). That means draft. Which no one will accept and will mean the end of the war anyway. So we should just end our involvement, and get out. The Iraqi’s can sort it out, it may not be bloodless, but they’ll do it.
They just don’t get it. More troops will mean more violence. Gen. Abizaid (NOT retired) said that more troops will not help.
They just don’t get it. Iraq is already lost.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:39 pmWhy do ReichWingNuts hate America? Why are they insistant on self destruction?
There is no way to “win” in Iraq. So what’s the point of having more of our sons and daughters die over there? So some coke-head frat-boy can look good and protect his “legacy”?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pmIs that a rule? GWB can only get advice from people that are progressive.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:41 pmThe ego-maniacal men just can’t let it go.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:42 pmDaddy’s Boys as advisors makes Junior feel inferior, so Junior had to put together his own “Iraq Study Group”. I bet Junior will study this as hard as he studied in college.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:43 pmThis reminds me of Bush’s ’search’ for vice-president. Solicited many opinions, examined many options, then - Holy Crap! - chose Dick.
When’s he going to consult Paris Hilton?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pmI mean,anyone could predict this,and it won’t work either.
If there is a bright side,hopefully this will destroy McCain in 08 and give Dems. larger majorities and make Lieberman irrelevant.
It’s sad,but our death count is going to increase.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pmNo, Kevin, Bush’s rule is to only get regressive advice.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#8 - Is that a rule? GWB can only get advice from people that are progressive.
No. It’s a rule that the President needs to be smart enough to pull his head out of his a** and to look clearly at reality and to LEAD a nation to the right things for all involved. That’s democracy.
Anything short of this is nothing but a boy playing Emperor trying to rule through force as a dictator.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI know where we can get the first 5 additional troops…
December 12th, 2006 at 12:47 pmNope. that’s why we have an ISG report.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:48 pm“Is that a rule? GWB can only get advice from people that are progressive. ”
No, GWB can only get advice from people that agree with him.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pmWell, lets see what kind of brain power the Dems and Pelosi will bring to the table.
http://www.cnn.com/ POLITICS/ blogs/ politicalticker/ 2006/ 12/ incoming-house-intelligence-chief.html
ROTFL
December 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pmWhat happened to listening to the commanders on the ground?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:51 pm“Well, lets see what kind of brain power the Dems and Pelosi will bring to the table.”
Any brain power would be better than the zero brain power currently at the table.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:52 pmNope. that’s why we have an ISG report.
Comment by Kevin
Which is being ignored……Hello?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:53 pm[To ‘win’], I suspect we’re probably talking about 20,000 or 30,000, something along those lines, a much more substantial kind of increase.â€
Where the hell are the 20,000 or 30,000 troops supposed to come from?!
This is the equivalent of rounding up the handful or so of scientists throughout the world who don’t believe global warming is real and using them to dispute the claims of the thousands upon thousands of those who do.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#8 Kevin
Is that a rule? GWB can only get advice from people that are progressive.
Do you think the ISG is progressive? Not one member and not one person they interviewed was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Yeah, that’s real progressive.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#11 cynic
This reminds me of Bush’s ’search’ for vice-president. Solicited many opinions, examined many options, then - Holy Crap! - chose Dick.
Actually, it was Dick Cheney who searched far and wide and ended up choosing Dick Cheney.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:00 pmGreat , hes taking advice from Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle Dum, and Rambo.. charming
USA ! USA! USA! USA!
hoooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrayyy!!!!
December 12th, 2006 at 1:02 pmLet’s bring our troops home and send in Biddle, Keane and Cohen with M-16s. Looks like their aching for a fight.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:05 pmThe old guys who authored the ISG report. They probably checked thier egos at the door, didn’t have anything to lose or gain, and gave a fair assessment of the situation.
So after how many more deaths and years will all these bozos just stuff it?
December 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pmchimpeach,
re: getting 20,000-30,000 troops. I have a great idea..
1> Anyone who voted (R) will be subject to draft.
2> Christian Coalition
3> Finally we drop the big on one them.. No not a nuke, Mighty Aphrodite, the stench from her will kill everything within 2000 miles.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pmActually, it was Dick Cheney who searched far and wide and ended up choosing Dick Cheney.
chimpeach
If you believe that, I’ve got some oceanfront property you might be interested in. The whole thing was a set-up.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pmanother PNAC wanker.. what a shock..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen
this one doesnt seem like a total and complete moron though.. at least he understand the idea of a “war on terror” is BS..
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Stephen_Biddle
December 12th, 2006 at 1:07 pmI was reading through George Grote’s multi-volume history of Ancient Greece the other day and read a passage that seems particularly appropriate for the situation now as regards Iraq. The passage is written in the context of Athens and her attempt to conquer Sicily in 415 BC. Alcibiades and other politicians, orators, and seers had advocated in the people’s assembly to send out an expidentiary force to destroy Syracuse. It was obvious that the peace with Sparta was not going to hold and that it would be necessary to resume full-scale hostilities. Alcibiades and his allies told of how conquering Syracuse, a huge city that could potentially aid Sparta, would prevent their doing so in the future. Also, they would be able to make the Sicilians their allies and then aid them in crushing Sparta.
Of course, it all ended in disaster. Nicias had to ask for reinforcements, which the assembly granted. Athens now had most of its best manhood and ships in Sicily. Athens lost battles first by land and then by sea, and were eventually surrounded and the whole armament was annihilated, leaving Athens defenseless against Sparta and the allies.
After the assembly found out the horrible news, there was great recrimination against Alcibiades and the other orators who had spoken so loftily of all that would be gained by conquering Sicily. They had crowed about how easy it would be and how much more powerful it would make the Athenian Empire. None of these predictions came true.
In his commentary on this scene Grote wrote: “The adviser of any important measure always makes himself morally responsible for its justice, usefulness, and practicability; and he very properly incurs disgrace, more or less according to the case, if it turns out to present results totally contrary to those which he had predicted.”
That made me consider our war with Iraq. For a moment, think of the people who advised us that the war was the right and smart action to take. Think of the politicians: John McCain, Joe Liebermann, George W. Bush, etc. Think of the intellectuals: Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, Ken Adelman, etc. Think of the editorial boards of major newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Post, etc. Think of the magazines: The Weekly Standard, National Review, New Republic, etc. Yet, despite that, these people have not incurred the disgrace and public ridicule that is their due for the utter disaster that has come upon us. The President met with Eliot Cohen yesterday in a strategy meeting. John McCain is a front-runner for President and wants to send more troops in. Why should anyone listen to these people when their advice on the most important issue facing America, namely Iraq, has been shown to be completely and utterly wrong? Everybody knows the predictions: WMD’s, ties to Al Queda, “cakewalk”, ally in the war on terror, etc. etc. I think it’s amazing that these people are still listened to at all. It shows that either we are too stupid to keep listening or that the War Party’s propaganda is just that good.
As for the Iraq Study group, why weren’t people on there who were right from the beginning? People who advised against sending in the army? People whose counsel has been proven to be wise and thoughtful? People who don’t have to come up with elaborate justifications as to why their suggestions have been shown to be simply horrible? It’s a mark of their true desperation and hypocrisy to hear people like Michael Rubin and Ken Adelman plead that the problem was not the idea of going to war with Iraq, but in the Bush Administration’s execution. Please!
December 12th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#25Comment by chimpeach — December 12, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
I never said it was. I wonder if he only had progressive advisors if you folks would be happy.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pmWho said only? Oh yeah you. Why? Because you think everything is black and white and it isn’t.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#31 cynic
Why is that hard to believe? Cheney was the one who was tasked with finding a VP for Bush. He interviewed several people and then decided the best person for the job was himself. The only thing about that that would surprise me is if he actually interviewed anyone, rather than just saying that he did.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pmKevin: “Is that a rule? GWB can only get advice from people that are progressive.”
Again with the strawman arguments. How about this: W solicits advice from one or two progressives. Kevin, you evidently are not aware of this, but every member of the ISG was a supporter of the war. These new guys were, of course, supporters of the war. Bush has not solicited the advice of even one person who was against the war. In other words, advice has been solicited from only those who were wrong. Nobody who was right has been asked for advice. So, take your silly strawman argument and perform an unnatural act with it.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThe thing lacking in the dueling advisor strategy is the American people as expressed in the November elections. They are no longer interested, if they ever really were, in a military solution. That alone makes advise of this nature worthless.
In the meantime more Americans die in Iraq.
The American people didn’t say the tactics in Iraq were bad. They said the strategy in Iraq was bad. “A new way forward” sounds an awful lot like “mission accomplished”. It means nothing and the American people know that it means nothing. Repackaging “stay the course” doen’t change the spots on that leopard. Only a stubborn fool would fail to recognize that. Sadly, we have an unlimited supply of stubborn fools.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:15 pmKevin: I believe progressives were happy that a BIPARTISAN commission was formed to look at the options with Iraq. We’re unhappy that Bush has decided to IGNORE the advice of the bipartisan commission and put together a PARTISAN group of advisors to rubber stamp his LOSING policies.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#30 JesusWasBrown
3> Finally we drop the big on one them.. No not a nuke, Mighty Aphrodite, the stench from her will kill everything within 2000 miles.
That’s too cruel to even kid about. My god, you’re sick.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pmI knew the ISG report would end up being butt wipe. I must be smart.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:18 pmInteresting to me and very telling that the two retired Generals are the ones who are not in favor of more troops
December 12th, 2006 at 1:20 pm#34,
Since when did death and murder become a partisan issue? Are you really taking the position that you must be a supporter of murder in order to be conservative? That seems contradictory to me.
You do miss a critical component, though. This November the American people gave their government a mandate, and that is to end the Iraq invasion and bring the troops home. That message is clear and there is no ambiguity. The fact that the criminal-in-chief is now setting up an advisory panel that all have polar opposite agendas than the will of the people is what you should be screaming about.
So I have to wonder, why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate our soldiers so much that you want them to die unnecessarily? And, finally, why do you hate America?
These are the questions that you should be asking of yourself.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:23 pmCarl, of course it’s the two pasty-faced chickenhawk neocons who want to send thousands more troops. When will we stop listening to neocons??!!
The president has got his war,
Nobody knows just what it’s for,
Nobody gives you a rhyme or reason,
Have one doubt, they call it treason.
All chicken feathers without one single nut! God Dammit!
Les McCann, “Compared to What” late 60’s
December 12th, 2006 at 1:27 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how some people can so easily live with blood on their hands…
Sometimes winning costs more than losing.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:33 pmThese guys have their heads jammed hard up their asses. 20-40K troops will make a difference? Yeah, right. What kind of deluded fantasy world are these cretins living in? Their stupidity is breathtaking.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:42 pmPres Bush is out shopping for advise. What a surprise.
Of course, he looks for people who will tell him what he wants to hear not what he needs to know: The Great (mis)Leader is naturally allergic to differing views and opinions. “Stay the course” is still his favorite course of action.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#34 - Any competant advisors would be acceptable but anyone who is competant is will be in direct conflict with The STUPID BOY KING who is Wrong Wrong Wrong about everything and comfortable with that, as long as nobody tells him so. He’s lying to himself and everyone else just so that he feels good while our Country and Military suffer.
On a single day the Baker Commission looked at attacks on our troops.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:49 pmThey picked one day when 97 attacks were reported.
After investigating they found over 1,100 attacks that day. That’s the danger our troops are facing right now, and tomorrow, and the day after….
I say than when each of these stooges, especially Cohen (”20 or 30 should do it” WTF is that about?) is ready to send their kids or grandchildren tomorrow to patrol Bagdad, I’ll listen to what they have to say.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:54 pmstephen biddle: “If you could get a political deal by saturating Iraq with American troops, then it might make sense to do it even if you do fall to much lower levels afterward. But I haven’t heard anybody put forth an argument about what these troops are going to do while they’re there that will bring that about.â€
translation: if it’ll work, i’m all for it.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pmHe interviewed several people and then decided the best person for the job was himself.
chimpeach
Unless you’re a mind reader, you’d have no way of knowing that. How many other tales told by these people have turned out to be fabricated? The very fact that yours is the ‘official’ story makes it suspect in many people’s eyes.
Bush 41 considered several people for the Supreme Court, and then chose the most qualified: Clarence Thomas. Oops.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:02 pm1991 - 600,000 troops not enough to invade Bahgdad according to James Baker, George HW Bush and Dick Cheney.
2006 - 140,000 +20,000-40,000 troops is plenty according to James Baker, George W Bush and Dick Cheney.
This math doesn’t make sense to me. Any of you trolls can explain this new math to me?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:03 pmGeorge Bush: Once a failure, always a failure. Again he’s found failure and so it’s only natural for him to “stay the course” with failed policies.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:08 pmBackground on one of these guys:
Eliot A. Cohen is a professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. Cohen is the Director of the Strategic Studies department at SAIS and has specialized in strategic studies, the Middle East, Persian Gulf, Iraq, arms control, and NATO. He is a member of the Project for the New American Century and was called “the most influential neoconservative in academe” by energy economist Ahmad Faruqui.[1]
December 12th, 2006 at 2:11 pmWhen are we going to stop allowing those people - that have been wrong every step of the way - to continue to make decisions?
Hey Kevin - instead of focusing in on progressive or conservative credentials… how about we disqualify those people - that thought going into Iraq was a good idea - from being a part of any focus group… and how about we increase our troop numbers by putting all those people - that thought it would be a cake walk - on the front line in an unarmored Hummer?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:14 pmElliot Cohen signed the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century.
It’s not surprising he wants to escalate the war.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pmJack Keane is on the Board of General Dynamics, a Defense Contractor/War Profiteer.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#49 cynic
Unless you’re a mind reader, you’d have no way of knowing that. How many other tales told by these people have turned out to be fabricated? The very fact that yours is the ‘official’ story makes it suspect in many people’s eyes.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that Cheney lied about picking himself for VP? Or are you saying it was a lie to say that he was the one who was supposed to be picking someone for VP? There’s no mind-reading about it. It doesn’t even make sense that it would be a false story. What is it that you’re trying to say?
If it’s any help, the following is from a 7/25/00 article at cnn.com:
“Cheney, who has spent the past several weeks conducting Bush’s search for a running mate, emerged as the front-runner for the position late Friday. An announcement was expected Tuesday in Austin, but the governor’s top aides cautioned Monday that nothing is definite until Bush says it’s definite.”
December 12th, 2006 at 2:39 pmYou honestly thought the Illuminati @ CFR would give up?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:49 pmSo, you’re going all in….thatta Bushie! (someone please help us)
December 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pmSo, I guess Bush was the dictator of Texas before being the dictator of the US. He would have just stomped his little feet if he didn’t agree.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pm“Like most Americans, this administration wants to succeed in Iraq because we understand success in Iraq would help protect the United States in the long run,” Bush said after his State Department briefing.”
Krikey!@ When is he going to get it?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:02 pmMost Americans do not subscribe to his version of “success in Iraq”. Since when is “stay the course”, any kind of a version of succeeding!
OK, God hasn’t told him about the election yet. OK.
I agree that sending a blanketing swarm of American troops to crush the rebel forces is a splendid idea.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pmEvery adult who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004, or their children, or grandchildren who are of military age should be conscripted and go.
Let’s put a million troops in Iraq for 30 or 40 years.
That oughta do it.
Do what, you ask?
How the hell should I know, but the academics advising Bush surely can’t be wrong? Can They?????
This disgrace of a president is now turning to people with little experience for ways to escalate this war? Absurd.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:28 pmhey all, let’s write request letters to the NYT and WP for headlines to now end in “.wtf ” ! I can’t handle any more ‘news articles’ so malicious they don’t even mention the main topic: horriffic stage-acting marathons.
Call a soldier for the holidays.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#63 - Pablo - tell em wtf stands for windows true font…
December 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pmHow many billions to Halliburton instead of Isama?
December 18th, 2006 at 4:21 pmHow much time and energy and dollars? Is this our war? Is this the legacy “war” of our president? Iraq? Iraq? How many times?
December 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pm[…] send more troops to Iraq. He was a strong opponent of the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, giving the report an “F” grade and saying, “It’s a cover story to accept […]
April 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am