Posted on 10/20/2006 5:37:47 AM PDT by Eurotwit
The 'secret plan' ploy
Walter Wells International Herald Tribune
Published: October 20, 2006
PARIS Even though Richard Nixon didn't have one, the notion that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war helped him win the presidency in 1968.
Actually, "secret plan" wasn't Nixon's term; a reporter on deadline used it as he covered Nixon's speech promising quick victory in that vastly unpopular war. But recognizing the power of those deceiving words, and politics being politics, Nixon never corrected the journalistic shortcut.
The rest, as they say, is history.
What goes around comes around, it is also said, and that's especially true about political tricks that work. Now we're hearing not of a secret plan, but of a yet-to- be announced "alternative strategy" for a war that shows no signs of turning and an occupation that is tragically failing to pacify the terrain.
The Iraq Study Group, a commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d that has President George W. Bush's endorsement, promises soon to produce recommendations for Iraq. A little respect is in order for any escape hatch that Baker may offer the Bush administration.
Besides political trickery, the parallel circumstances between Nixon's "secret plan" and Baker's "alternative strategy" are striking. An election figures in both, of course. Nixon's plan was credited with helping him win in 1968, and Republicans (if not Bush and Dick Cheney themselves) are eager for anything now that might move them beyond the embarrassing stalemate in Iraq as they try to hold onto Congress in elections less than three weeks away.
The image of "quagmire" has been visited enough already, and is questionable besides. America's involvement in Vietnam lasted more than a decade and cost the lives 55,000 of its troops, many of them draftees. Iraq is of Bush's doing and it is a volunteer army that is fighting the war, though the mandatory extensions of duty in Iraq have turned the fighting force into something less than a volunteer one.
But Bush himself has acknowledged some echoes. Asked by a television interviewer whether he agreed with the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that the current surge of violence in Iraq might be equivalent to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, the president allowed that this could be so. "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election," he said.
Among other parallels, it's interesting to reflect on the spurious foundations for both wars. In the Vietnam era, Congress authorized Lyndon B. Johnson to wage war because of a fabricated incident in the Tonkin Gulf. A modern day Congress nodded along irresponsibly as fabricated intelligence about Iraq's weapons capability passed before it.
There's another parallel that's obvious. Vietnam damaged America's standing in the world and its competence to fulfill its obligation as the "indispensable nation." The consequences of Bush's misadventure in Iraq are already blindingly apparent not just in America's diminished stature abroad but also in the Bush administration's inability both to challenge Iran and North Korea and to persuade allies to do so.
Finally, and it's only a footnote, there's the craftiness of Baker. He may be no Nixon, but he's one of the most politically adept operatives of his generation. He may also be the only official from the first Bush administration who has credibility both with the electorate and with the current president himself.
At this point, if the Iraq Study Group has a plan for Iraq it is indeed secret. There are some leaked reports from members other than Baker, and there are Baker's own strategically placed words that whatever his group recommends, it will not be "staying the course."
Nixon was wily enough to use the reporter's "secret plan" to help him win votes. The question now is whether Bush is smart enough to accept whatever cover Baker may offer. The signs are not all negative. While he rattles on about "staying the course," Bush also said at a news conference last week, "Don't do what you're doing if it's not working - change."
From Baghdad, the chief U.S. military spokesman, Major General William Caldwell, messages that the old strategy isn't working. So let's hope Bush will be wise enough to grab at the new one that Baker will offer. Secret or not, somebody needs a plan, and fast.
Walter Wells is former executive editor of the International Herald Tribune.
PARIS Even though Richard Nixon didn't have one, the notion that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war helped him win the presidency in 1968.
Actually, "secret plan" wasn't Nixon's term; a reporter on deadline used it as he covered Nixon's speech promising quick victory in that vastly unpopular war. But recognizing the power of those deceiving words, and politics being politics, Nixon never corrected the journalistic shortcut.
The rest, as they say, is history.
What goes around comes around, it is also said, and that's especially true about political tricks that work. Now we're hearing not of a secret plan, but of a yet-to- be announced "alternative strategy" for a war that shows no signs of turning and an occupation that is tragically failing to pacify the terrain.
The Iraq Study Group, a commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d that has President George W. Bush's endorsement, promises soon to produce recommendations for Iraq. A little respect is in order for any escape hatch that Baker may offer the Bush administration.
Besides political trickery, the parallel circumstances between Nixon's "secret plan" and Baker's "alternative strategy" are striking. An election figures in both, of course. Nixon's plan was credited with helping him win in 1968, and Republicans (if not Bush and Dick Cheney themselves) are eager for anything now that might move them beyond the embarrassing stalemate in Iraq as they try to hold onto Congress in elections less than three weeks away.
The image of "quagmire" has been visited enough already, and is questionable besides. America's involvement in Vietnam lasted more than a decade and cost the lives 55,000 of its troops, many of them draftees. Iraq is of Bush's doing and it is a volunteer army that is fighting the war, though the mandatory extensions of duty in Iraq have turned the fighting force into something less than a volunteer one.
But Bush himself has acknowledged some echoes. Asked by a television interviewer whether he agreed with the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that the current surge of violence in Iraq might be equivalent to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, the president allowed that this could be so. "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election," he said.
Among other parallels, it's interesting to reflect on the spurious foundations for both wars. In the Vietnam era, Congress authorized Lyndon B. Johnson to wage war because of a fabricated incident in the Tonkin Gulf. A modern day Congress nodded along irresponsibly as fabricated intelligence about Iraq's weapons capability passed before it.
There's another parallel that's obvious. Vietnam damaged America's standing in the world and its competence to fulfill its obligation as the "indispensable nation." The consequences of Bush's misadventure in Iraq are already blindingly apparent not just in America's diminished stature abroad but also in the Bush administration's inability both to challenge Iran and North Korea and to persuade allies to do so.
Finally, and it's only a footnote, there's the craftiness of Baker. He may be no Nixon, but he's one of the most politically adept operatives of his generation. He may also be the only official from the first Bush administration who has credibility both with the electorate and with the current president himself.
At this point, if the Iraq Study Group has a plan for Iraq it is indeed secret. There are some leaked reports from members other than Baker, and there are Baker's own strategically placed words that whatever his group recommends, it will not be "staying the course."
Nixon was wily enough to use the reporter's "secret plan" to help him win votes. The question now is whether Bush is smart enough to accept whatever cover Baker may offer. The signs are not all negative. While he rattles on about "staying the course," Bush also said at a news conference last week, "Don't do what you're doing if it's not working - change."
From Baghdad, the chief U.S. military spokesman, Major General William Caldwell, messages that the old strategy isn't working. So let's hope Bush will be wise enough to grab at the new one that Baker will offer. Secret or not, somebody needs a plan, and fast.
Walter Wells is former executive editor of the International Herald Tribune.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/20/opinion/edwells.php
Thanks Texkat,
That was an interesting article.
Well worth reading twice :-)
A masked gunman stands on a street corner as a building burns nearby in southern Iraqi town of Amarah, 320 kilometers (200 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Friday Oct. 20, 2006. Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday after their fighters stormed three main police stations Friday morning, planting explosives that flattened the buildings. (AP Photo/Haidar Hany)
You mean, if similiar people fight, is it a civil war? Isn't that the definition of 'civil war'?
It's definitely a power grab, within the Shia community. Al-Sadr may be a thug, but he's no dummy. He knows that our election is close, our troops are tied down in Baghdad, and that the Iraqi central government is too weak to mobilize against him. Now is an ideal time to take his political power to the next level.
It's not a coup, per se, but it may be the start of a separatist movement, with al-Sadr setting himself up to be the leader of the Shia state. In his mind, now is the perfect time. Who's going to stop him?
My point was that the MSM have been calling Sunni vs. Shiite the civil war and they need to be separated but they always fail to mention that there are other factors involved and it's not going to end with dividing the nation into 3 parts.
The only thing the Shiites understand is force.
Go in, kill Sadr, kill his opposition and tell them that if they don't disarm and become part of the political process, we will release Saddam.
These SOBs are Shia. There are both Shia and Sunni jackasses causing the problems who we don't respond to for PR reasons.
If that does not happen, bring the troops home.
How? He's been out of office for three years? Even when he was in, Cheney was running the show in Iraq.
It won't last long, in the south. By and large, the population will fall in line behind the religious leaders, like al-Sadr and al-Sistani. Secular Shia leaders won't be much of a factor outside of Baghdad.
There will be infighting, but it won't be necessarily deep. They'll come to an understanding with each other, after they're free of the central government.
The British supposed to be in control of this area. They should have called in airstrikes from RAF,USN,or USAF when this thing began.
Heck, these militiamen may have been set up by Moqtada so he can sacrifice them to show his "loyalty" to the government- and get rid of some threatening members of his group.
Tribalism seems beyond Americans to comprehend. It's as if our county governments constantly fought over boundaries and power with each other and the state and the feds.
This looks like something that should be in "Breaking News".
The story has been confirmed by Freeper "Allegra" in Baghdad.
then Sadr has made a move that is certain to lead to major conflict with the U.S. and the Iraqi government.
It is such a brazen, in-your-face move by Sadr that it would only have been done as part of a larger plan.
For starters, it's a clear attempt to carve out a part of Iraq outside of the government's control.
That can't be allowed to stand because it would lead to fragmentation of the rest of the country as well.
Sadr and his puppet masters in Iran know this, and must have planned the next step as well.
The British pulled out of the settled areas of Amarah province a couple of months ago and turned it over to the central government. They moved out into the desert and marshes. They mostly just run border interdiction now I believe.
America needs to lose its pair of kid gloves. ....yesterday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.