Why (How?) Bush Thinks We're Winning In Iraq

I think the question is far less why, but how as in "What the fuck is Bush thinking?", if he thinks at all. From Froomkin's blog today on Wednesday's Bush press conference (read the full transcript here since it's enlightening from a mental health perspective; reality-defying in-fucking-deedy):

One of the more reality-defying aspects of President Bush's position on the war in Iraq is his insistence that we're winning.

That was a central theme at yesterday's press conference. Here's the transcript .

"Absolutely, we're winning," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done."

With the body counts soaring, the country descending deeper into civil war and the central government consistently unable to assert itself, how can he call this winning?

The answer: It's becoming increasingly clear that Bush sees the war in Iraq in very simple terms. As he himself said, he believes that the only way to lose is to leave. Therefore anything else is winning -- anything else at all.

Even if no progress is being made -- even if things are getting worse, rather than better -- simply staying is winning.

So we're winning.

Bush expanded on this principle in a fascinating, one-hour Oval Office interview yesterday afternoon with a half-dozen conservative journalists.

One of the attendees was Michael Barone of U.S. News, and usnews.com last night Web-published the transcript as well as the audio . The National Review, whose Byron York attended, published the transcript this morning.

Even though the session was mostly on the record, Bush seemed looser than he usually does in interviews. The result was a slew of disjointed, sometimes not particularly intelligible, but sometimes deeply telling insights into his thinking about the war. It's a heckuva read.

For example, Bush said he owes his conviction that leaving equals losing to Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Central Command chief who oversees military operations in the Middle East.

And regardless of his recent public attempts at semantic backtracking, Bush made it clear to this group of supporters that "stay the course" remains his strategy.

Here's Bush, in his opening remarks:

"Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John Abizaid -- I don't know if you've ever had a chance to talk to him, he's a smart guy -- he came up with this construct: If we leave, they will follow us here. That's really different from other wars we've been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they're coming after us. As a matter of fact, they'll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.

"Abizaid clearly sees this struggle -- he sees the effects of victory in Iraq as having a major impact on other parts of the Middle East. He also sees the reciprocal of that, a defeat -- just leaving -- the only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven."

As for "stay the course"? Said Bush: "This stuff about 'stay the course' -- stay the course means, we're going to win. Stay the course does not mean that we're not going to constantly change."

Part of the problem with Bush's equation is that it fails to take into account that the war in Iraq is more than just a war between the U.S. and the terrorists.

If you see Iraq as purely U.S. vs. Al Qaeda , then it can indeed be hard to see a withdrawal as anything but a terrible defeat.

Peter Bergen partly channels that view in a New York Times op-ed today. He writes: "A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book 'Knights Under the Prophet's Banner,' Al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world."

But Iraq is not U.S. vs. Al Qaeda . It's primarily a civil war now. The U.S. occupation is radicalizing Iraqis, most of whom say they want us out. And as that National Intelligence Estimate released last month states, the Iraq war has actually fueled, not slowed, the terror movement.

So would withdrawal from Iraq leave behind a failed state in which Al Qaeda could thrive? Would the terrorists follow us home?

Or would the opposite be true? Perhaps an American withdrawal is the only chance for Iraq to put itself back together. Perhaps the first step in winning the ideological war against terrorists would be abandoning such an easily demonized position, and instead modeling the principles of peace, freedom, and respect for Islamic people that we talk about so much.

Is there a middle ground between the "leaving equals losing" and "leaving equals winning"?

As it happens, Bergen proposes one in his op-ed today: "America should abandon its pretensions that it can make Iraq a functioning democracy and halt the civil war. Instead, we should focus on a minimalist definition of our interests in Iraq, which is to prevent a militant Sunni jihadist mini-state from emerging and allowing Al Qaeda to regroup. "While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Wow, Abizaid's mother must be real proud that the president considers the general a "real" thinker.

Second, notice the "stay the course" commentary is still there, despite Bush and Snow(job)'s efforts to characterize the "stay the course" rhetoric as entirely an invention of the media's.