Bush preps the political battle space

Steven Lee Myers:

President Bush’s Iraq strategy faces a crisis of faith these days — from the American public. And he is confronting it the way he has previous crises: with a relentless campaign to persuade people to see things his way.

...

“We are still in the early stages of our new operations,” Mr. Bush said in the radio address broadcast Saturday, as if there were not those who fervently wished the country was in the later stages, preparing to bring the troops home.

The White House’s strategy is as unwavering as it is familiar. In military parlance, it is called preparing the battlefield — in this case for the series of reports and hearings scheduled on Capitol Hill next month to debate the wisdom of struggling on in the midst of Iraq’s sectarian chaos and bloodshed.

If recent history is a guide, Mr. Bush may well prevail, as he did in January when he made a similar blitz to build the case for dispatching more troops to Iraq, despite swelling public opposition to the war and a Democratic rout in last November’s elections.

“If there’s one thing that they’re good at, it is their ability to campaign for something,” said Tara McGuinness, deputy campaign manager for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of antiwar groups that has organized its own public-relations effort.

That is not to say that the White House’s campaign does not face obstacles.

Public opinion remains sour. Republicans appear increasingly frustrated, chief among them Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who last week called for at least a symbolic reduction of troops by Christmas. And a new National Intelligence Estimate concluded that violence in Iraq remained high, that terrorists could still attack in spectacular fashion and that the country’s leaders “remain unable to govern effectively.”

The White House response was a classic look at the bright side. “The National Intelligence Estimate’s updated judgments show that our strategy has improved the security environment in Iraq,” a spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said Thursday.

...

... the White House has the advantage of consistency and being able to play defense. Mr. Bush simply has to hold on to enough lawmakers to thwart, with a veto if necessary, any congressionally mandated reductions or timetables for withdrawal.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have to make the case for a new approach that not all of them appear able to agree on. They remain torn between a passionate base that wants American involvement over now and a pragmatic middle that believes a rapid or complete withdrawal of troops would carry risks — exactly the point the White House intends to drive home.

...

Within the White House, there is growing confidence that Mr. Bush will be able to withstand Democrats’ efforts to force a change in strategy. “The end of August feels much better than the beginning of August,” a senior aide said Saturday.

...

What the President is winning is the time needed for the troops to finish their mission. He is fighting for time and the Democrats are fighting for our defeat. Some of them are fighting so hard for our defeat because it is something they have always wanted while others see political benefit in our defeat. As the article points out, there are some Democrats who see political danger in our defeat so they are cautious about how they peruse that defeat and for tactical reasons they may give the troops more time. I think the President and Gen. Petraeus have identified enough in this latter category to extend the Washington clock for a few months.

The Democrats still remain al Qaeda's best hope for salvaging their operation in Iraq. Without the help of the anti war Democrats al Qaeda's position would be hopeless. Even some Democrats now see this.

Myer does raise the false charge that the administration has used shifting reasons for operations in Iraq. This is totally bogus and Myer should have said so. The Bush administration had what should be called a multi count indictment of the Saddam government and made it clear before the opening of the war. Critics ave tended to focus on the WMD count because like Saddam, we were unable to account for all his WMD. But, before the war, Bush also talked about Saddam's genocide, his support of terrorist, and Bush's belief in the power of democracy to transform the region.

Since the war began, al Qaeda saw this transformation as strategic threat to its ambitions to transform the region into an Islamic despotic death cult. They have been fighting hard for their vision and they are losing in Iraq, but they have found several useful idiots in the democrat party willing to aid their effort.