Another Bush supporter disagrees with my Rumsfeld interpretation

BS to LA:

Come, now. The import of the Secretary’s comment is not hard to follow:

“We intend to win this with the cooperation of the Iraqi forces that we are building up. They will be taking over more and more of the responsiblity as time goes on. We cannot win in Iraq without the support of the majority of the people for their government and the government has that support. That support is increasing even among sections of the population that had been suspicious or estranged. Victory over the insurgency doesn’t depend upon us alone, it depends upon the Iraqis. Were they against it, we could not, of course, succeed. Victory should be credited to them, in the final analysis.”

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

LA to BS:

I didn’t say it wasn’t reasonable, given the terrible spot we’re in due to the Bush team’s disastrous past errors. I said it’s a complete reversal of what all Bush policy supporters including yourself have been singing in a chorus for the last two years, namely that we are going to defeat the insurgency, or are just about to defeat the insurgency, though, of course, the definition of this victory kept switching back and forth between a military victory and a creation of democracy in Iraq that would somehow make the insurgency disappear. Now Rumsfeld is clearly saying that we are going to withdraw from direct military involvement in Iraq at some point in the not-distant future with the insurgency still intact, in the hope that the new Iraqi government and military will be able to handle the situation. Is this what the Bush supporters believed, when they said the arrest of Hussein in December 2003 signalled the approaching end of the insurgency, when they said the handover of sovereignty in June 2004 signalled the approaching end of the insurgency, when they said the battle of Fallujah in fall 2004 signalled the approaching end of the insurgency, when they said the election in January 2005 signalled the approaching end of the insurgency, when they said the formation of a government in spring 2005 signalled the approaching end of the insurgency, and when they said pro-active attacks by U.S. forces on insurgency holdouts and rat-lines signalled that the insurgency was in its last throes and that, in the words of Karl Zinsmeister, the war was over? Or, as you yourself put it, “What makes you think the situation needs saving? A messy little war against a minor insurgency has been progressing nicely.”

Also, as I wrote earlier:

Do Bush’s passionate supporters, who have invested so much in him and in defending him, feel used by him now, or will they immediately support this latest twist, just as they have automatically supported all his previous twists?

Looks like the answer is yes.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 27, 2005 09:01 PM | Send