With midterm elections looming, President Bush wants voters to know that he has a new plan to win in Iraq. Not completely new, of course. That would force Mr. Bush to admit that the old plan was wrong, which would force all those Republicans who backed him to the hilt to admit that they also were wrong.
So what's new about the new plan? It has "benchmarks" for Iraq to start solving its own problems.
But not mandatory benchmarks. Those would imply consequences if Iraqis failed to disarm religious militias or failed to build an army that can take over security or failed to agree on sharing wealth and political power among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds now killing each other in what looks like the civil war President Bush denies that it is.
In fact, the major consequence if Iraqis fail to meet their "benchmarks" is that American troops will have to stay longer.
President Bush admitted Wednesday that Americans "are not satisfied" with the way things are going in Iraq. In fact, most Americans hate the way things are going in Iraq, and they won't be satisfied with "benchmarks." The only goal this "plan" fulfills is the Republican Party's desperate need to appear to have a better plan than "stay the course."
A remark in Mr. Bush's news conference hinted at how badly what passes for a plan has gone. Noting that this month's violence had killed more than 90 U.S. troops and 300 Iraqi troops, he said, "Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals." In 2003, President Bush had to sell Americans only on the need for a plan to defeat Saddam Hussein. Now, he needs a plan to defeat "terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals." His own description of the chaos in Iraq debunks the White House claim that October's spike in violence is a coordinated effort to influence U.S. elections.
The old plan, decorated with unenforceable "benchmarks," won't bring victory. If, as the president repeated this week, the struggle for Iraq will "set the course for this new century" and is "the challenge of our time," why has he refused to send enough troops to win?
So much of what the Bush administration says doesn't make sense because it is a distortion of the truth. The president repeated the "good news" that 90 percent of violence is confined to just five of Iraq's 18 provinces and that most of that is within 30 miles of Baghdad. But if the sphere of violence is so small, why is it so hard to contain?
And it isn't Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's fault, President Bush said, because he's only been in charge for five months. Yes, but the United States has been in charge for 3 1/2 years. In any case, Mr. Bush's praise for Mr. Maliki is starting to sound strained. Though he won U.S. backing with a promise to unite Shiites and Sunnis, the Shiite Mr. Maliki refuses to crack down on Shiite militias - or let the U.S. do it - because the Shiite majority would not let him stay in power if he did.
Mr. Maliki himself added to the impression that the administration is out of touch with reality. On Tuesday, Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad predicted that the new "benchmarks" plan would allow Iraq to take "primary" responsibility for security in 12 to 18 months. But Mr. Maliki rejected the benchmarks as grandstanding and a political ploy tied to the coming U.S. elections.
Even if Mr. Maliki had not scoffed, The New York Times noted that Gen. Casey previously made a similar promise of a yearlong transition to Iraqi responsibility - and that was 20 months ago.
President Bush says Americans will support the Iraq War "as long as they see a path to victory." He and unquestioning supporters in Congress have lost public support because every "new" path President Bush has followed has led to the same dead end.
Meet 'new' Iraq plan, same as the old plan
So what's new about the new plan? It has "benchmarks" for Iraq to start solving its own problems.
But not mandatory benchmarks. Those would imply consequences if Iraqis failed to disarm religious militias or failed to build an army that can take over security or failed to agree on sharing wealth and political power among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds now killing each other in what looks like the civil war President Bush denies that it is.
In fact, the major consequence if Iraqis fail to meet their "benchmarks" is that American troops will have to stay longer.
President Bush admitted Wednesday that Americans "are not satisfied" with the way things are going in Iraq. In fact, most Americans hate the way things are going in Iraq, and they won't be satisfied with "benchmarks." The only goal this "plan" fulfills is the Republican Party's desperate need to appear to have a better plan than "stay the course."
A remark in Mr. Bush's news conference hinted at how badly what passes for a plan has gone. Noting that this month's violence had killed more than 90 U.S. troops and 300 Iraqi troops, he said, "Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals." In 2003, President Bush had to sell Americans only on the need for a plan to defeat Saddam Hussein. Now, he needs a plan to defeat "terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals." His own description of the chaos in Iraq debunks the White House claim that October's spike in violence is a coordinated effort to influence U.S. elections.
The old plan, decorated with unenforceable "benchmarks," won't bring victory. If, as the president repeated this week, the struggle for Iraq will "set the course for this new century" and is "the challenge of our time," why has he refused to send enough troops to win?
So much of what the Bush administration says doesn't make sense because it is a distortion of the truth. The president repeated the "good news" that 90 percent of violence is confined to just five of Iraq's 18 provinces and that most of that is within 30 miles of Baghdad. But if the sphere of violence is so small, why is it so hard to contain?
And it isn't Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's fault, President Bush said, because he's only been in charge for five months. Yes, but the United States has been in charge for 3 1/2 years. In any case, Mr. Bush's praise for Mr. Maliki is starting to sound strained. Though he won U.S. backing with a promise to unite Shiites and Sunnis, the Shiite Mr. Maliki refuses to crack down on Shiite militias - or let the U.S. do it - because the Shiite majority would not let him stay in power if he did.
Mr. Maliki himself added to the impression that the administration is out of touch with reality. On Tuesday, Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad predicted that the new "benchmarks" plan would allow Iraq to take "primary" responsibility for security in 12 to 18 months. But Mr. Maliki rejected the benchmarks as grandstanding and a political ploy tied to the coming U.S. elections.
Even if Mr. Maliki had not scoffed, The New York Times noted that Gen. Casey previously made a similar promise of a yearlong transition to Iraqi responsibility - and that was 20 months ago.
President Bush says Americans will support the Iraq War "as long as they see a path to victory." He and unquestioning supporters in Congress have lost public support because every "new" path President Bush has followed has led to the same dead end.
Meet 'new' Iraq plan, same as the old plan