Bush Sacrificing Iraqi Elections For Own Re-Election

Conventional wisdom would suggest that using warfare for political purposes is such a bad idea that it would ultimately doom a politician, even though some politicizing of warfare is probably inevitable. Why, then, is President Bush formulating military strategy in Iraq based upon what is best for his own re-election campaign?

The LA Times explains:

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi — where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest — until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

This wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing, if it weren't for the fact that the delays could decrease the chances that more of Iraq will be ready for elections in January. Bush's election chances might be increased without bad news from Iraq, but Iraq's election chances may decrease. Moreover, what will the delays do to the military's chances of succeeding with a minimum of casualties?

One way or another, there is something very, very wrong about the administration formulating and structuring military policy on the ground in Iraq based upon what effect an offensive might have on the president's election campaign.

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry
• War on Terrorism