A Change in Tactics, Not Strategy

"Bush did not say during the half-hour meeting with Democrats where else he thought Saudi Arabia would seek 'protection,' but he made it clear that he was simply informing Democrats of his decisions on Iraq, not consulting with them. He said that he understands the challenges and thinks his plan has the best chance of success."

This is pure Cheney.

As I wrote in my insufficiently heeded June 23 column: "In Cheney's view, withdrawal from Iraq would first and foremost make the United States look weak. And that, in turn, would have cataclysmic domino-style effects across the globe: Afghanistan could fall, and so could Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The Iranians could get nukes. And the United States itself would become dramatically more vulnerable to attack, not to mention lose its ability to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.

"Cheney really loathes weakness. And like his fellow neoconservatives, he is consumed with the conviction that an all-powerful United States is both imperative to American security and the best thing for the world. Moral leadership, multilateralism, containment, human rights -- those are all less crucial than maintaining unquestioned power, at the point of a gun if necessary. . . .

"The problem with Cheney's philosophy, of course, is overreach. In Iraq, as in Vietnam before it, the United States may have started something we can't finish."

Here's the transcript of Cheney's unusually revealing interview with CNN at the time.

The foremost champion of the diametrically opposite view -- that staying in Iraq is eroding U.S. power -- is former National Security Agency director General William Odom.

He's laid out those views over at my other Web site, NiemanWatchdog.org. In August 2005, Odom wrote that all the nightmare scenarios the White House was predicting would happen if we pulled out -- including a loss of international credibility -- were actually happening already.

In November 2005, Odom wrote that the only way to bring democracy and stability to the region is to get out of Iraq.

And in July, he argued that our continued entanglement in Iraq is what is destabilizing the region and emboldening our enemies.

Dems to Bush

Kessler and Weisman write in The Post: "Democrats in both the House and the Senate signaled that they will actively oppose his plan to send several additional U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, the first of which -- made up of about 3,500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division -- could move relatively quickly into position from its current assignment in Kuwait. Bush's decision, which he will announce in a speech tonight, is rapidly becoming the first test of wills between the Republican president and the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the chamber will debate and vote next week on a resolution opposing any increase in U.S. troop strength in Iraq. He predicted that the resolution will pass with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans alike."