Something changed last week regarding Iraq

This past week marked a tremendous shift in the public perception of Iraq. A series of significant events combined to make it clear that the situation not only continues to worsen, but that even "serious" establishment types know it and are saying so very openly.

There were several influences, and just a quick recap, in no particular order: Leaks of the Iraq Study Group findings (suggesting a partial withdrawal may be recommended); Bush administration infighting and leaking, including the anti-Maliki memo and the Rumsfeld "we're not winning" memo; Iraqis burned alive; major media outlets (finally!) decide to call Iraq a 'Civil War'; Maliki stands Bush up at summit dinner; Sadrists withdraw from Iraqi government.

Individually, each of these elements is sobering, but together they created perhaps the most significant shift in public thought since Congressman Murtha called for withdrawal.

I have long thought (and written) that Iraq is slowly deteriorating, that the situation moves along a sliding scale rather than getting drastically better or worse from any one event. Recent events have moved the sliding scale towards "total anarchy" faster than usual, but they also had a huge effect on the dialogue in the U.S. A vast majority of the country wants to begin redeployment, and calls for withdrawal are no longer greeted with disdain from the pundit class. Additionally, the Bush administration is quite clearly in the middle of internecine bureaucratic warfare, and plans appear to range from stay the course to let loose the Shia to increasing troops.

So . . . what happens now? What will the President actually do in the face of establishment pressure to change? Based on past evidence, the answer appears likely to be: not very much. He has consistently said the only way to lose is to withdraw, which means, to him, staying equals winning. With Secretary Rumsfeld out, I'm not sure who other than Cheney shares that view, but if President Bush does, it's the only opinion that really matters. President Bush never again has to answer to voters, and he is the Commander in Chief. In terms of political pressures, he is nearly immune, and even within his party, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator McCain, advocates an increase in troops, which does nothing to push the President to do the right thing.

Perhaps other Republicans will impress upon him the strategic and political necessity of getting our forces out of Iraq. Perhaps Secretary Rice or (soon-to-be) Defense Secretary Gates will guide a return to sanity. On the other hand, I think it's just as likely, perhaps more so, that the influence of the Vice President will remain primary and/or that President Bush will ignore people who no longer matter to him politically or personally and keep at his disastrous war. Remember, this is a man who sees himself as a modern day Truman -- a president who was deeply unpopular but largely vindicated by history (by, I should note, setting up institutions and international relationships that eventually allowed his strategies to succeed -- the exact kind of things our current President not only neglects, but disdains).

President Bush has never shown that he is willing to change, so reality-based observers have a moral obligation to keep treating him accordingly. I strongly believe that when people act, they compel from society the logical response to that action, and the President's continued obstinacy demands opposition, not capitulation. He deserves not faith or trust, but, as he has earned, distrust and constant oversight. And patriotic Americans of both parties owe it to the country to keep the pressure on him.