Comparing Bush’s surge to Obama’s

Thu, 10/08/2009 - 10:54am

Yesterday Viola Gienger, a smart reporter at Bloomberg, asked me to compare President Bush's decision to surge in Iraq to President Obama's current deliberations. This is my response:

The biggest difference that strikes me is chronological. Bush ran the Iraq war one way for about three years. Then, in November 2006, the big Republican losses in the mid-term elections gave the White House a sense of urgency to take a different approach. In the following weeks, Bush not only adopted a new strategy, he got a whole new chain of command in place -- a new secretary of defense, a new Central Commander, a new commander in Iraq, and a new ambassador there too. (And six months later, a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs.)

Obama has had less time in office. And he appears to have less time to make the decision. It took about five weeks from the Nov. 2006 elections to Bush's adoption of a new strategy. I think Obama will be lucky to have that long.

Second, when Bush endorsed the surge, he was rejecting the advice of almost all his military advisors. By contrast, if Obama goes for a troop escalation, he will be embracing the recommendations of his generals.

Third, for Bush, going with the surge required from him almost a change in personality -- for the better. I think that for several years, he had been cheerleader in chief. In December 2006, he finally became commander-in-chief, asking tough questions of his generals and exploring the differences in opinion. I don't think Obama will have to undergo such a change in making this decision. But he will have to embrace being a war president, which lately he has seemed kind of ambivalent about.

Gary Fabiano-Pool/Getty Images

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Other Differences

by Zathras on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 11:46am

Three and a half years before the surge in Afghanistan, fully eight years before the one being discussed in Afghanistan.

An enemy under consistent pressure in Iraq, an enemy left to regroup and reorganize unmolested in its Pakistani sanctuary.

An Iraqi government improving its ability to deploy armed force (if not to deliver services), an Afghan government that is not.

An Iraqi government with the passionate support of key factions within the country's largest sect, an Afghan government confronting an insurgency dominated by the country's largest tribe.

A surge in Iraq that was made the undisputed top priority by the Bush admininstration as it made claims on the military's resources, an Afghan campaign that is hampered, still, by the greater resource demand of the prolonged commitment in Iraq.

Finally, a Bush administration committed to finding a way to hand off the Iraq problem to its successor, and an Obama administration that came into office believing it could "solve" Afghanistan.

There are more differences than similarities, it seems to me.

Another similarity

by Walking Wounded on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:17pm

In both cases, the escalation carries an explicit threat, sets conditions to replace the client-executive. Neither Maliki nor Karzai, up to the point of the counteroffensive, was/is delivering results for the occupying power, or the local population.

The Russian epoch went thru several regimes in Kabul, terminating one in the manner of LBJ's firing of Diem. Maliki was the third or fourth Iraqi face in the GZ/IZ, and the first one openly pushing for a reduced US force, and a (bloody) independant military policy of ethnic cleansing.

As Zathras says, the Iraqi Shiites had/have a deep bench, whereas the Karzai family (neo-royalists) couldn't put a real team together after the last war either. Any gov't in Afghanistan will be a coalition of minorities, barring the improbable return of Pashtunistan E. of the Durand line. A minority regime is easily undermined by the well funded opposition ensconced in Pakistan, whose huge military will unite with the Taliban to keep Pashtunistan split.

President Obama is not Bush!

by admiral on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 1:03pm

President Obama is not or ever will he be the same as the at large international war criminal Bush. Just like in another post today, you are using Neocon talking points to push President Obama into a corner. President Obama has many dire issues on his plate. President Obama is not a war monger, and is doing the best he can while playing 52 card pickup. He has no desire to be a war president. We should all take comfort in this fact. Stand tall Mr. President, the American people support you in your battle against the liars and criminals at work against you in the pentagon.

'Admiral's' prolific comments

by tom ricks on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 1:10pm

"Admiral,"
I am beginning to fear that your comments are driving others away. Do you think you could limit yourself to perhaps one comment a day?
Thanks,
Tom

Mr. Ricks

by admiral on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:23am

I appreciate your fairness and tolerance. In light of President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today, I'll take a more "diplomatic" approach to any future comments.

Sincerely,

admiral

Neocon? Huh?

by James S. on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 1:14am

I realize Mr. Ricks does not need me to defend him, but neocon? It just doesn't make sense. If I understand correctly a neocon is actually someone who has changed his beliefs from those of a Liberal/Left ideology to those of a Conservative/Right ideology. As I firmly believe Mr. Ricks beliefs fall into what can best be described as Center/Left, it would be incorrect to characterize him as a neocon or any other kind of conservative.

As to what kind of President President Obama want to be, it’s really irrelevant. As the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were ongoing during the election and were expected to be ongoing after his inauguration, he knew he was going to be a War President going into the job. He is a War President. What he does in his position is what will define him not what he wants. Maybe it’s just that I’m one of the warmongers you are talking about, but you do the job you are given, not the job you want to do.

Good comparisons. One I

by MDrew on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:53am

Good comparisons. One I would add is that by the time Bush got around to his Surge, he not only did not have his own reelection to think about, he did not even have another midterm to think about. He had only his legacy/best interests of the U.S to consider. I'm not sure I can say which one of those predominated in his calculations.

I'd also suggest this emendation to the point about Bush going against his generals' advice: at that time a "plus-up" was agianst the consensus military view, because it was thought to be to late to save Iraq. Bush had already dithered through an entire period wherein the quiet consensus was that we obviously never had enough troops to manage the occupation, though he was carefully protected from ever having to directly confront that consensus of expert opinion in the form of official requests from commanding generals because of top-down pressure on them not to formalize that view in such a resource request. In that sense, the moment we are now in with Obama (or that Obama is now facing himself more accurately) is in that sense a far more straight-up-and-down test of his leadership than Bush ever was willing to voluntarily accept, until all the junctures of his political accountability to the U.S. public had passed.

Wait a minute

by Norwegian Shooter on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:15am

I remember hearing that Bush dithered for months over the decision to surge or not. Didn't the issue come up in the summer of 2006?