Maybe I need to be clearer. The reason I believe things are dire in Iraq is pretty simple. The evidence is accumulating that the insurgency – fostered by Baathist thugs, al Qaeda murderers, and other Jihadists – is gaining traction. That would be a manageable problem if the population despised them and saw a way through to a better society. But the disorder and mayhem continues to delegitimize the Iraqi government and, by inference, the coalition occupation. And the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. to seal the borders or effectively counter the terror contributes to the general view that the insurgents are going to win, and therefore the notion that the U.S.-led liberation may make matters even worse than they were before. And this is a vicious cycle. In other words, one reason the insurgency is spreading is because it has tacit support or merely passive acceptance among the general population. And once the general population turns against an occupying power, then things get really … Algerian. The key moment was probably when George W. Bush blinked in Fallujah. That was when the general population inferred that we were not prepared to win. It’s amazing, really. This president has a reputation for toughness and resolution. Yet at arguably the most critical moment in this war, he gave in. He was for taking Fallujah before he was against it. I cannot believe the situation is beyond rescue. But this president’s policies have made it much much more difficult than it might have been. Elections are now more vital than ever – because they are the sole means of gaining the advantage in the legitimacy stakes. With those must come a relentless guerrilla war against the enemy, a massive increase in troop levels (whether Iraqi or America), and a huge effort for reconstruction. But we have thrown away a year’s worth of opportunity. By incompetence and lack of will. Fallujah was a kind of Dunkirk. And Bush is no Churchill.
NPR’S BALANCE: Compare these interviews with Bush campaign honcho Ken Mehlman and with Mary Beth Cahill. They just can’t help themselves.
EDWARDS PICKS IT UP: My Cheney quote from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer yesterday was in fact used by John Edwards – on the Imus show. The point was not about the decision to depose Saddam – the merits of which obviously changed after 9/11. The point was an awareness of how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq, put it back together again and keep it from falling apart. The latter Cheney and Bush relentlessly downplayed. Here’s Edwards: “When [Cheney] was asked why they didn’t finish the job in Iraq . . . he talked about the enormous danger and risk of getting bogged down, of having to govern the country. Of the casualties that would be incurred. To use some of the same language these people have used against John, he was against getting bogged down in Iraq before he was for it.” Sharp one. Of course, it means little with respect to whether Bush or Kerry are better suited to take over the job from now on. Tonight I’ll be watching the debate at Dartmouth College, following a talk in the same auditorium on the election. If you’re near Dartmouth, join us: Filene Auditorium, Dartmouth, 7.30 pm.
The Dish 