The “tipping point” terminology has been used significantly for the second time in a week—first in regard to the climate crisis, and Sunday in a column by Frank Rich entitled “Someone Tell the President the War is Over.”
Rich makes a pervasive and persuasive case that a tipping point has been passed, leading to a US withdrawal from Iraq. But that’s counting on GW Bush to act like a more or less rational politican and leader. The ship of state may be tipping—but towards peace, or towards even greater danger?
Rich points out that recent polls show the American public disapproves of the war in Iraq and the presidency of GW Bush in almost exactly the same percentages as disapproved of the war in Vietnam and the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, shortly before Johnson announced he wouldn’t run again.
Like LBJ in 1968, the crucial wound is waning support (if not, as in LBJ’s case, growing opposition) within the president’s own party. For GW, it begins with his most rabid supporters:
But the force that is likely to end the war, Rich says, is the Republican party regulars, particularly in Congress, as they come closer to the 2006 elections. That’s why, Rich writes, the balance towards ending the war “crashed past the tipping point this month in Ohio.”
Rich notes that it was in a speech in Ohio that Bush began to make the case for war in Iraq based on “a miasma of self-delusion, half-truths and hype,” exaggeration and “false premises.” But it was last week in a special election in a solid Republican district Ohio that Democrat Paul Hackett got 48% of the vote—much closer to winning than anyone predicted.
Moreover, Hackett is a former Marine reservist who served in Iraq and called GW Bush a “chickenhawk” and made the war in Iraq a major issue in his campaign.
Republicans noticed. Rich writes that congressional Republicans will perform the coup de grace on the war if they want to get reelected—and that’s a done deal, because the war isn’t going to go any better. Rich concludes:
WHAT lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson’s March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we’ll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.”
Rich’s arguments are supported by other numbers he doesn’t cite. A Rassmussen poll shows that almost exactly the same percentage of Americans believe the U.S. is winning the war on terror—a paltry 38%—as support the war in Iraq. This suggests that Bush has reached to the floor of his most ardent supporters—somewhere around a third of the electorate. And if feuding rabid righters are any indication, even that floor may collapse.
But there are possible problems with Rich’s analysis. His analogy with Lyndon Johnson, apart from it being at two different points in the election cycle, fails to account for the differences in the two men. Though he doggedly pursued it and tried to punish any perceived disloyalty to his leadership, Johnson was conflicted, bedeviled, even fatalistic about the Vietnam war. GW Bush appears to be a true believer.
Johnson was a man of reason much of the time, who seemed to care deeply about civil rights and wanted to create a Great Society. He was also a consummate politician. GW Bush is a zealot, with no inclination towards compromise for the good of the country, or even the good of his party. He has shown no inclination to separate himself from the neocon ideologues led by Dick Cheney.
Record Keeper’s quote on the front page from the famous Ron Susskind piece is absolutely apropos in this regard. The neocons believe in the absolute power of empire, and the neocon of the executive branch don’t face an electoral challenge for almost four years.
So while US generals talk about troop reductions, Bush talks about America not losing its nerve in Iraq, and refuses to compromise on anything. Plus, this week he specifically said that the US considers the use of force an option in the continuing dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.
So we may be at a tipping point, but which way is this ship of state going to tip? The Bushites clearly feel that they can do anything they want, and are accountable to no one. They seem to be flummoxed politically, their previously reliable instincts no longer sharp and their old tactics no longer working. They may do something desperate without ever admitting their desperation to anyone, including themselves. Especially themselves.
Politically, if Bush really wants his Social Security package, and permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, it will be up to congressional Repubs to hold his feet to the fire on Iraq. But the Bushwhackers could roll the dice with a few crazy things, like attacking Iran and/or trying to institute a military draft, partly to change the equation, partly because they have an agenda to complete, and partly just because they can.
This may turn out to be the beginning of the end in Iraq, but it also may very well be a time of great danger.
