Views > December 18, 2005

Tale of Two Wars

By Joel Bleifuss

The White House has hit on an ingenious way to win the war in Iraq. It is all laid out in a White House policy paper, “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.”

The strategy was conceived and written not by the nation’s top military strategists but rather by Peter Feaver, an associate professor at Duke University whose field is public opinion and polling. Feaver, hired by the National Security Council earlier this year, is a co-author of “Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq,” a study that found, “When the public believes the mission will succeed, the public is willing to continue supporting the mission, even as costs mount. When the public thinks victory is not likely, even small costs will be highly corrosive.”

In essence, the way to win the war is to declare “victory” as imminent. And that is what President George W. Bush has been doing as he tours the country promoting the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.”

Consider this excerpt of Bush’s speech on December 14 at the Wilson Center in Washington:

I’ve come to discuss an issue of vital importance to the American people, and that is: Victory in the war on terror. … [W]e cannot—and will not—leave Iraq until victory is achieved. … We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. … we will not leave until victory has been achieved. … We will carry on the fight, we will complete their mission, and we will win. … victory will be achieved.

The “strategy for victory” is not aimed so much at the war in Iraq as the domestic war at home. That’s because Bush needs to win in Iraq—or at least manage public perceptions of that increasingly costly war—to consolidate his victory in Washington.

On Capitol Hill, the Republican congressional leadership has been busily dividing the victor’s spoils: billions of dollars tax cuts to GOP patrons; rollbacks in regulations; and defunding of government programs.The GOP’s weapons of choice: a phalanx of K-street lobbyists and rule changes to Congress.

Since 1998, according to the Center for Public Integrity, the lobbying industry has spent $13 billion trying to influence national legislation by deploying an army of lobbyists that has included more than 200 former members of Congress and 42 former directors of federal agencies.

For many of these lobbyists, particularly those representing corporate interests, their job is made easier by changes in House rules that allow votes to be held open for hours. That gives the GOP leadership time to wheedle and bribe (through the addition of pork barrel budget lines) recalcitrant colleagues to get in step with the party line.

To combat this some progressive Democrats have put forth some specific proposals. Reps. David Obey (Wis.), Barney Frank (Mass.) David Price (N.C.) and Tom Allen (Maine) unveiled a package off 14 reforms that:

• Prohibit all recorded votes in the House of Representative from lasting longer than 20 minutes without the consent of the leaders of both parties.
• Make it an ethics offense for one member to make funding requested by another member dependent on how that member votes.
• Make it an ethics offense for any member to advocate a specific funding line in the budget unless that member discloses whether he or she has a financial interest in the funded entity.
• Mandate that the House only consider legislation that has been printed and made available to all members of the house for a 24 hour period.

Will these reforms ever see the light of day? Don’t count on it.

After all, we’re at war, and that is Bush’s ultimate victory: Perception management for a war the administration is losing afar to protect itself from defeat in the war they are winning at home.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Given that the National Strategy really says nothing that hasn’t already been clearly stated or publicly presented in the past two or three years; given that it was in response to baseless criticisms that there was no strategy (ie critics who can’t read the daily news or comprehend simple speeches), it is not surprising that the published strategy should be led by someone who can restate the obvious to people who are incapable of understanding the obvious.

  Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 16, 2005 at 4:28 PM

  What I gather you are saying, Jay is the new bullshit is no different than the old bullshit.

  Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 17, 2005 at 9:16 AM

  Given that the Natioinal Strategy really says nothing that hasn’t already been clearly contradicted by subsequent events (weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida connections, the gratitude of a grateful population for their salvation from the tyranny of Hussein’s regime, the degradation and torture of ordinary Iraqis in order to capture and torture those who resist the occupation of their country by foreign invaders), given that, as such, it was stated in response to criticisms that there was no justifiable strategy for the invasion or subsequent occupation of Iraq, it’s not surprising that such a strategy should be propagated by someone who can only restate the obvious misrepresentations and remain completely incapable of understanding any of them.

  Posted by Major Major on Dec 17, 2005 at 9:33 AM

  Wow!  Is this article insightful or what?

  Joel Bleifuss states the obvious and, quite naturally, chooses the part which suits him for dissing.

  “When the public believes the mission will succeed, the public is willing to continue supporting the mission, even as costs mount. When the public thinks victory is not likely, even small costs will be highly corrosive.”

  Hey, Joe, the second sentence is what you and most media types have been parroting and the polls now reflect.  Bush finally woke up to discover people want an honest admission not everything is going as expected. Therefore, “The “strategy for victory” is not aimed so much at the war in Iraq as the domestic war at home.”

  You think this is because, “ ...Bush needs to win in Iraq...” Yes, but it’s not about just Iraq.

  This WAR is for REAL!

  Suggested reading:

  http://upstatenyman.blogspot.com/2005/07/this-war-is-for-real-by-mg-vernon.html

  Dr. Vernon Chong’s credentials:
  
  http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000

  Posted by whattheheck on Dec 18, 2005 at 7:59 AM

  WTH:

  Here is the good General Doctor’s complete analysis of why “the Muslims” are attacking us. “Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.” That’s it. Wow! Is that insightful!  Then he goes on to say that the US has done nothing to provoke attacks.  That is horseshit pure and simple.

  Islamo-Fascism! Islamo-Fascism! Islamo-Fascism! Islamo-Fascism!  Just repeat until your brain turns to jelly.

  Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 18, 2005 at 9:13 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 210 posts.

Member Login

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Bush’s Selective Mourning
  
• Piling it High
  The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day
• Political Vice Squad
  
• Red-Boating Obama
  
• Political Climate Change
  
• Pollsters and Puppets