Semi-Daily Journal

Since before the 2000 election Bush has been a loose cannon. It comes out especially when things are going good for him (economy, England visit). Do you remember what he told a reporter he and his father talked about? It was just a joke, but so, umm, off message.

Gotta echo Sean's comment. Bush was focusing on the most important issue -- a commitment to the success of the mission in Iraq. His answer was clear and correct. He intends to do whatever it takes.

Bush's comment didn't contradict the current plan to somewhat reduce the number of American troops. Unfortunately, there are some who are looking too hard to find inconsistencies. Rice's clarification was necessary for those people.

I think you're overlooking the possibility that Bush has the attention span of a ferret after its third espresso.

More indication there is no Iraq exit plan. We are winging it.

[Lord knows that if Bush had stated that under no circumstances would troop levels be increased, you'd be attacking him as close-minded, stubborn, and inflexible. Get a grip.]

Gee, what was the name Atrios had for this fallacy? Assuming that in other circumstances, the person you're arguing with would behave in such a way as to justify condemning them?

I mean, that completely misses the point. The objection here is not whether Bush was talking about increasing or decreasing the number of troops, but that he blithely contradicted existing Administration policy, and apparently wasn't making a new policy statement given the near-immediate correction by people who nominally work for him. The man doesn't seem to realize that he's not bullshiting in a bar in Midland any more, and that he should actually think before saying things like that.

When former Army Secretary White made an equally impolitic-but-honest assessment regarding the Iraq occupation, he was ousted by the administration. Can a president oust himself?

Sean and David, do you not understand (as mike reminds you) that the official policy of the Pentagon is that we are lowering troops level as of February?

And do you not understand that according to an as-yet uncontradicted CBO study, we don't have any more troops as of then anyhow?

And do you not understand that increasing troop levels (which I support, by the way) would require policy changes on the part of the backbone administration that would require acknowledging that they badly underestimated the difficulties of this adventure?

And do you not understand that for bush to act like he's not part of the same government in which the pentagon has already made the troop reduction analysis doesn't make him look flexible and adaptive to the needs of the task but rather makes him look like the ill-informed shallow indvidual we know he is?

I can't remember the quote exactly, but when someone accused Keynes of being inconsistent, he replied to the effect: "When my information changes, I change my views. What do you do, sir?" Apparently, prof. DeLong thinks this option should not open to the current president.

I can't remember the quote exactly, but when someone accused Keynes of being inconsistent, he replied to the effect: "When my information changes, I change my views. What do you do, sir?" Apparently, prof. DeLong thinks this option should not open to the current president.

More ingenuousness on the part of the defenders of the administration. However, it's blatently obvious that Bush's views have [i]not[/i] changed, else we'd be seeing a change in the planned draw-down of US force totals in Iraq. I would be willing to credit this to a genuine desire on Bush's part of express all parts of a complex issue, except that his phrasing makes that difficult to really support; his comments would seem to support the very opposite of what his (or, at least, his administration's) policy is. Further, Bush has, historically, not particularly shown a desire to understand or express the complexities of the issues he deals with as president (even his most ardent defenders must admit, I would hope, that the flip side to the moral clarity they admire is that Bush does not display a strong grasp of nuance).

Are Sean and Dean asserting that this is the way that foreign policy decisions are revealed to the general public - that, on one hand the Bushites make and announce plans to reduce troops and then blithely decide to change their minds? What precisely has changed about the situation in Iraq that, on one hand, dictated a reduction in troops, and then, inexplicably, simultaneously leads to sending more troops?

How do you also explain the subsequent comments by the top Bush aide that the plans to reduce troops was still the same??

I see no contradiction between the notion that Bush has good intentions and also the attention span of a well coffee'd ferret.

Obviously if Iraq is to come to any sort of Germany/Japan post WW-II happy ending, and if the Bush Administration are too incompetent to win the trust of the international community to help out, then the use of unlimited US force, over infinite time, has to be a background possibility credible to everybody.

Even if Bush plays chicken with James Dean flair, there remains the question of whether he can play the game with good results. The problem with Vietnam was not merely that Maxwell Taylor's numbers were more than America could stand, but also that those boots on the ground were not doing anything useful. What if chicken is the wrong game?

Bush must not merely do the cheerleader thing, waving unlimited American force in the eyes of those he has chosen as adversaries. He must also show that US force can actually accomplish what needs to be done. The first is pretty easy. Indeed Bush has done it, as is shown by the fact that any Democrat who wins the White House can do so only by aiming to carry out the Bush program (There's an Arabic term for it: Ba'ath) only with international help.

The second is far harder: it is a question not just of being able to pose skilfully, with a careful judgement of whether your toes can stand the petit-point. It also involves the real world.

If a Democrat wins, gets the Security Council on side, and has infinite force available, what then?

Remember that the first military surveys of this landscape were done by an old guy named von Moltke, on horse and camel back, just about exactly a hundred years ago. The peaceful Professor von Moltke IV would no doubt be available to help out a United Nations force in Iraq, and the Wehrmacht are no slouches in the deseert.

Suppose that didn't work? Suppose none of this stuff is a military problem?

Which seems to me to be the case.

maciej writes:
>
> I can't remember the quote exactly, but when someone
> accused Keynes of being inconsistent, he replied to the
> effect: "When my information changes, I change my views.
> What do you do, sir?" Apparently, prof. DeLong thinks this
> option should not open to the current president.

Others have pointed out that the problem isn't changing policy per se, but saying something that could be taken as a sign that the policy is changing when it really isn't.

That said, I do not think I could ever accept this Keynes quotation as a justification for anything the Bush administration does precisely because they operate in *exactly the opposite* fashion. So, no matter what the state of the economy might be, and no matter what new information arrives, high-bracket tax cuts are the correct answer to the problem. Despite our best information about the possible *lack* of serious WMD programs in Iraq, the pre-planned pre-emptive response is the correct one. Despite what must have been a universal recommendation against last year's steel tariffs from the economic team, we proceed with that course of action.

The current administration really does not change policy when new (or old) information suggests a different course. Political concerns are a different matter; my greatest current fear about the Iraq invasion is that we will choose our time and method of leaving not to fulfill any foreign policy goal, but to placate domestic opposition should it ever seem likely to cost any votes at all.

Yes, as others have pointed out, when calling on other to get a grip, one should be sure of one’s own. Brad’s point, at least as stated, was that Bush was “off message.” That, in the post-Nixon world, is worth noting. (David Gergen, who wrote speeches for Nixon, gives Nixon and his staff credit for having created the pattern of communication used by administrations ever since.)

Yes, the quick clarification was for those who might have taken Bush’s statement wrong. What is not clear is whether, for the unnamed advisor making the clarification, taking Bush wrong means taking his statement at face value (Bush is wrong, full stop) or taking his statement as an announcement of new policy (Bush was talking reality, not policy). It is well worth watching to see which it was. Meanwhile, Bush was off-message.

On a less “gotcha” subject, there are a number of problems with boosting troop levels. One is that already mentioned – we ain’t got ‘em, under current Army policy. Longer tours, less leave, more outsourcing, drawing down troop levels even further in Korea and Europe, are all possible, but those decisions have not been made yet. Another problem was outlined earlier this week by senior Pentagon logistics types (sorry, no time to get the link) – the Army hasn’t face a logistical challenge like the coming troop rotation in over a decade. There are real worries that their things are gonna get fubar when the rotation starts. Add more logistical challenges (raise troop levels in Iraq) and you get fu even more bar.

Rice signaling the press corp that this statement doesn't really count, and she'll clarify in a minute when the President is done?

Granted, it's not the same as Nancy prompting President Reagan on the White House lawn, but seriously, how low is this? The President own words are being discarded as he speaks them because of signaling from the players running the operations?

Who is leading who here?

Haven't read all comments, so I'll put it as a question: Has anyone considered the following fact: W's speech was directed at an international audience that is, generally, as concerned about America letting down Iraq in this election year as it was concerned about getting bogged down there in the first place. The "clarifications" back home were aimed at the domestic audience whose central concern is the growing number of un-photographed body bags, un-honored coffins and un-reported handicaped soldiers who are sent home every week.

Typical "double discours" as usual (all over again, am I tempted to add). Just as when W told international audiences that he was doing everything he could to avoid war in Iraq while simultaneously turning down amazing concessions from Saddam Hussein, and talking his own country into the inevitability of war because of WMD's (that he must have known were not to be found -that's his job- but that they thought "was the only reason everybody would aggree on".)

But then again, if the conservative foot-soldiers want to postulate their president is truthful and consistent, well, what can we do?

Remember Rejkyavik? Reagan agreed to something so outrageous that the Soviets couldn't believe their ears. His aides spent the next several days undoing the damage. Unfortunately I can't remember the whole story.

Reykjavik.

Zizka,

Part of the discussion was of a 50% reduction in ICBMs and a "zero" option in Europe. As CNN puts it, "...no agreement was signed in Keykjavic, (but) both leaders felt that the meeting was a success and opened the way for further progress."

Then, we started making progress. But, yes, Reagan's staff did much to undermine the initial effort.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/

Sean wrote:
> Are you completely incapable of distinguishing between an actual change in policy and the consideration of a policy change should it become necessary?

I think I'm repeating someone else's point here, but musing aloud about a possible policy change is almost the definition of "off message." Certainly, the message has been loud and clear that no new troops will be needed. For Bush to suggest otherwise, even hypothetically, is fodder for the media and a bit of a shocker.

It strikes me as irresponsible to bring up the possibility at all unless it is on the table as a serious contingency.

Let's take a look at reality as Brad has done so. Right now the plan is to draw down US forces fairly rapidly as the CBO has pointed out, the US can not sustain what it currently has in Iraq for any length of time. If you look at the committments the US has made to Korea and to creating the new IBCTs (medium brigades) and you assume that it is a national policy objective to have a strategic reserve and a deployable army in 2005/2006, then Bush is talking out of his ass on being able to send new troops to Iraq.

Currently the only options for more deployed brigade months in Iraq are these: to use the Marines thus drawing down the strategic reserve, to either extend the tours of duties for units already in Iraq or to shorten the reconstitution and rest time for units that have already served in Iraq and will be going back, or mobilizing the entire National Guard.

Those are the basic options available if you want more troops in Iraq past next May.

Alex, don't kid yourself.

Please describe the conditions on the ground that you believe support drawing down troops in the next 90 days.

No hypotheticals about Iran invading, no hypotheticals about resistance attacks stopping (there have been 2 terrorist attacks, the UN and the Red Cross), but the general conditions on the ground today.

Further explain what it is that shows you the george bush has any committment beyond his re-election.

Finally, explain why Rice had to clarify if the meaning is so crystal clear.

Please, people. All Bush was saying is "we will do what it takes to make the mission work". All Rice was saying was "and we think reducing troop numbers will do that."

Bush is not Greenspan, who's every word must be analyzed, scrutinized, and held up to the light to scry meaning. Bush is Bush, who says what is on his mind, relatively (for a politician) openly. His meaning is typically the surface meaning of what he says. (It seems this is hard for some people to understand. He has done what he said so many times, and had people say "he blindsided us" so many times, it is ridiculous. )

As a general rule, Bush policies can only make some plausible sense when spun just the right way, so if you are Rove, letting W talk about them in an unscripted way is not what you want to see a lot of.

The sad truth is, W's moment of truth-telling was in danger of exposing that victory in next year's election is a higher priority than victory in Iraq.

If W sent the number of troops needed to really fight an insurgency, he'd plummet in the polls for good. So instead, at least until after the election, the illusion that this is a cheap war must be maintained.

Do give books - religious or otherwise - for Christmas. They're never fattening, seldom sinful, and permanently personal.

Keep the good work.