FUTURE BUREAUCRAT

There are a number of good stories this morning on the reality Americans soldiers face as they conduct “The Surge.”

Garrett Therolf in the LA Times writes about the troubles of an American platoon guarding an Iraqi police compound in Baghdad.

Damien Cave in the NY Times witnessed an attack on an American patrol near Mahmudiya, resulting in at least one dead soldier and a number of wounded:

Huge, strong men hugged, tears streaming down their faces. When it was not clear whether the seriously wounded soldier on the ground would make it, “I love you” was said repeatedly…

An interesting leak appeared this morning in the Scotsman newspaper:

GORDON Brown will remove all British forces from Iraq before the next election under a plan to rebuild support among disillusioned Labour voters.  Scotland on Sunday can reveal the Prime Minister elect is working on a withdrawal plan that could see troop numbers slashed from 7,000 to as few as 2,000 within 12 months.

Not very surprising, is it? The plan is similar to the plan being proposed by Demoratic senators here in the US. The next election in Britain must take place before Spring of 2010, which will give the new US President about a year in office. Brown’s gesture is obviously symbolic: it shows the Bush Administration that he is not supportive of an open-ended commitment in Iraq; it seeks to repair the breach between Labour and the British public over the war; it severs the policies of the Brown government from the policies of the previous administration.

Of course this won’t stop the calls of retreat from the American right, but I’m sure Brown is prepared to weather the storm. By all accounts Labour is losing support among the British public and Brown must take steps to preserve a Labour government . In this context it is a smart move. (Are you taking notes Democrats?) The last thing he wants is to take ownership of the Iraq disaster. By making clear his intention to withdrawal, Brown has ensured that the British public sees Iraq as “Blair’s War.”

How soon one forgets. Was it only a few weeks ago that Vice President Cheney, et al., were attacking Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for traveling to Damascus to meet with Syrian officials? Actually it was precisely one month ago today.

How, then, can the administration now publicize a meeting between Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem on the sidelines of a regional summit on Iraq?

The administration did not decide in the last few weeks that it would undertake talks with Syria. I’m certain of that. The administration must have known during Speaker Pelosi’s trip that it would soon engage in dialogue with the Syrians, if it was not already doing so. The fact that Vice President Cheney attacked her for engaging in “bad behavior” for doing just this - well, I’m not really surprised any longer.

In my view, the administration’s attack on Pelosi can have only three explanations. The first, and most benign, is that the administration believed that Pelosi would undermine its negotiating position in some way. If this was the case, there was a simple solution: talk with Speaker Pelosi and make sure they were on the same page. As far as I know they did not do that. The second reason is that the administration wanted to score a diplomatic victory by appearing to reverse course and taking a softer stance toward the Syrians. They were therefore angry when Speaker Pelosi went to Syria as she was stealing a little bit of their thunder. Third, and most plausible, the administration took advantage of Speaker Pelosi’s trip to score some cheap, domestic political points. This was possibly the only opportunity in recent memory for the administration to attack concrete Democratic actions in the realm of foreign policy. Does it matter that those actions were actually consistent with the priorities of the administration? Of course not.

The Bush Administration never ceases to amaze.