The dictate of history: All the Iraq-war predictions are worthless, save one

How very familiar these seesaw samplings are, and from just one story from just yesterday's news alone:

"The battle of words over Iraq intensified today ... as Democrats renewed their criticism"; but, said the White House, "It’s pretty clear that it’s not a war without end.... Victory is defined as helping the Iraqis develop the capability of defending themselves and governing themselves."

"[Their] plan is more of the same," the Senate majority leader said, and "this is unacceptable"; but, said a White House spokesman, Democrats are merely "try[ing] to create a political framework for ignoring the success that has taken place." Another Democratic senator also "said today that the size of the troop drawdown was unacceptable"; but, "Bush is expected to tell the nation that he embraces the recommendations of ... the American military commander in Iraq," which means more of the same; and on, and on.

We've been reading, hearing, watching the same news for months. The Dems criticize; the admin responds; the Dems sharpen their criticism; the admin strengthens its response; the Dems escalate their criticism; the admin escalates its offensive defense; and on, and on.

Meanwhile, every bloody day, another four or five American soldiers lose their lives, another bombing of sectarian revenge occurs, another billion or so gets washed down the drain.

If the subject matter weren't so tragic, the rhetorical ping-pong game here -- in feckless reaction to the savage game played there -- would be comical. Never have so many said so much to so little intentional effect.

The White House strategy, of course, is to rely on this rhythmic sameness -- to ride out the Democrats' ineffectiveness to the very end, then make its problems somebody else's problems. The Democratic strategy is what you might call counter-similarity -- to rely on the White House's intransigence as a campaign prop, and then, having seized the White House themselves, as well as gained stronger positions in the Senate and House, do ... something. The "something" is for another day; for now, repetitious politics reigns supreme.

In short, both contestants are relying on sameness. Both are assuming the reliability of unchanging events and familiar scenarios for at least the next year. Their futures depend on it.

But, if I may venture a prediction: Both will find themselves in radically altered territory a year from now. The sameness they're relying on won't hold. The course of history doesn't work that way -- the only thing predictable about it is its unpredictability.

Most often -- and especially in politics and war -- the comfort of game plans smacks square into the brutality of unintended consequences within the same news cycle, let alone a week or a month down the road. Hence the reliability of a year-long plan is shaky, at best, while to rely on such reliability is downright foolish.

Simply and exceedingly vaguely put, "something" will happen. And that something will alter the face of this war and its politics dramatically. I'm not the amazing Kreskin, so I can't know what the something will be. Perhaps an extended and far more severe regional conflict; perhaps Anbar Sunnis turning on their unnatural allies, sucking in more of the latter; perhaps a Shiite-militia coup. Who knows. The menu of potentials is diverse and explosive.

But I do know this: The one thing -- the only thing -- we can count on is that we won't be looking at the same war a year down the road, as both Democrats and Republicans are settling in for. All the current political and military calculations will be garbage by then. It'll be a whole new ballgame -- a damn-near unrecognizable ballgame -- and today's bleak sameness will seem like wistful nostalgia.

Comments

[erineson]

The only sure things about war are death, destruction and profiteering. Smedley Butler wrote the short book summarizing war--WAR IS A RACKET.
Politicians banter and partake in gamesmanship while the pawns in their chess game are manipulated as though they were inanimate objects. The talking heads exchange ideas which bear no fruit and the death, destruction and profiteering march onward.

[Walter F. Wouk]

Our soldiers are fighting -- and dying -- for a Commander-in Chief whose only plan is to keep them fighting and dying until he can toss the remains of his ignoble war into the lap of his successor.

Then he will spend the rest of his parasitic life patting himself on the back for "staying the course."

[Mooser]

The most amazingly jaw-dropping assumption embraced by the neo-cons is their blithe confidence the world will stand still while the US plays out its fantasies, and then all consequences disappear when we yell "Cut"!

[Medusa]

Confidence game, that's what they call it.

[Ian McGarrett]

Here are other predictions you can take to the bank: Whatever happens it will be used as justification for further escalation and however much America's reputation, infrastructure, and economy are wracked by this White House's investment in a lost and foolish cause, it will be those who argue against this course who will be vilified as losers and fools. All is grist to this mill.