The Three Pillars of Support for Bush’s Iraq War
Despite mounting opposition in Congress, the media and in the country at large to his policy in Iraq, George W Bush appears more, rather than less, confident that he will be able to resist calls for a significant change in direction. His confidence is not misplaced. Why is that?
The answer is that he has the support of three key constituencies in the country which, as long as they all hold firm, ensure that Bush will not succumb to pressure from Democrats and others.
The first pillar is the Republican base, 75% of whom still give Bush unwavering support.
They were the most avid supporters of the Iraq invasion and have been the most reluctant to admit their folly. They cling to the hope, much as the administration does, that a victory can still be pulled from General David Petraeus’ hat to vindicate their foolish faith in a deeply flawed president. They view any attempt to legislate a re-deployment from Iraq as defeatism and a victory for al-Qaida. Whatever the flaws in their arguments, the Republican base remains an avid supporter of Bush’s war.
The second pillar of support for Bush is congressional Republicans. Whilst a handful of GOP senators have become sufficiently disaffected as to join Democratic efforts to impose a withdrawal deadline, the bulk remains resolutely behind the president despite ever dwindling support in the nation, for three principal reasons:
First, the GOP base is vehemently supportive of staying the course, as noted above. That makes it much easier, indeed desirable, for most House Republicans in their safe, gerrymandered congressional seats and for most GOP senators, particularly in the south, to back Bush. Second, they voted almost unanimously in favour of the invasion of Iraq; they have little to lose by sticking with Bush and refusing to concede a colossal blunder. Finally, congressional Republicans, like their base, abhor the thought of a withdrawal which, to them, will inevitably feel like a Vietnam-style defeat rather than a rational effort to cut our losses, and redirect our military and diplomatic resources in more effective ways to confront al-Qaida in Pakistan, Islamic extremism, Iran’s influence in the Middle East and other challenges across the globe.
Bush’s final pillar of support rests in the military itself. Nobody disputes that the soldiers and marines of our all-volunteer forces have fought well and bravely in Iraq. The generals, on the other hand, who so foolishly and gutlessly supported, or acquiesced in, the planning and execution of the invasion, and who oversaw its aftermath, have most abysmally, failed the country. The standing of the United States military has been severely tarnished as it has floundered in its efforts to defeat a determined and savvy insurgent foe.
The US military’s dilemma has been that whilst it recognises the damage being done to the ground forces by the Iraq war, the prospect of withdrawing in circumstances that even remotely resemble a defeat is simply more than the Army and Marine Corps as institutions can bear. Hence the generals have swallowed their doubts and embraced a long term strategy in Iraq that will mean a huge if unwelcome commitment for many years.
It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that no matter how fervent the opposition in the rest of the country, Bush has sufficient strength from his three pillars of support to maintain his Iraq war policy at least until he leaves office in January 2009. For the rest of us, beating up on congressional Democrats for their failure to force a change in course cannot and will not alter that sad reality.
