Day: December 13, 2006

Remember last month when Vice Pres. Cheney made a quick and apparently unplanned visit to Saudi Arabia? Cynics that we are, we suggested that the purpose of his trip was to raise money for Pres. Bush’s $500 million “lie-berry” to be built in Texas after that glorious day when Bush leaves office.

Yesterday, we learned that Cheney’s visit may have been in response to an announcement by the Saudis that they intend to side with their Sunni brethren in the Iraq Civil War when the United States deploys its troops out of the country.

Today, for what it is worth, Bush spokesman Tony Snow denied that the Saudis made the threat:

The White House said on Wednesday Saudi Arabia shared U.S. concerns about the future of Iraq and denied it threatened to take sides in Iraqi sectarian violence if the United States pulls out its troops.

The comments came in response to a report in The New York Times that Saudi Arabia has told Washington it might give financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in their fight against Shi’ites if the United States withdraws from Iraq. “That’s not Saudi government policy,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. “The Saudis have made it clear that they are committed to the same goals we are, which is a self-sustaining Iraq,” Snow said. “I’d refer any further comments to the Saudi government but, certainly, their stated public policy and the policy that they have shared with us does not reflect that.” According to the Times, Saudi King Abdullah delivered that message to Vice President Dick Cheney during Cheney’s visit to Riyadh last month. The Times cited unnamed U.S. officials and Arab diplomats.

So why did Cheney rush to Riyadh at the end of November?

The front-page, above-the-fold headline on the Los Angeles Times this morning read, “Pentagon’s plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq.”

That was quick. Yesterday, we suggested the ISG report and Bush’s s “way forward” strategy sessions were all for show — that in fact Bush had decided earlier this year to send a “surge” of personnel into Iraq in 2007.

This prediction was based on looking at the options as the president saw them and choosing the one that would most benefit him personally and politically. Bush’s motives are focused entirely on salvaging his legacy. His short-term objective is to tamp down the violence in Iraq sufficiently to create a false perception of success. With a semblance of order in Iraq, he can declare victory before he leaves office. Whether the victory is real is irrelevant. If Iraq collapses under the next president’s watch, it will be his or her responsibility, not Dubya’s.

According to the Times article:

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive…

The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The flaw in this strategy, as we pointed out yesterday, is that it has been tried before — by Pres. Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam in 1965. After Johnson sent in an additional 50,000 troops, the United States remained in Vietnam for another decade, during which tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and innocent civilians were killed and untold millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.