More Whispers Abroad

On Monday we blogged about a possible coup attempt in Baghdad and today it would appear that's those rumors are valid. Furthermore, it appears as if that coup is being orchestrated from Washington (more here).

So, what does all of that mean?

Let's start with what little is left to crow about:

For years now the Bush administration has trumpeted the "free and fair" elections in Iraq as being sign of success. While it may be a sign of progress -- and, arguably, a justification for calling Iraq a "democracy" -- it is far from a sign of triumph. But if the U.S. allows/instigates a coup (or some other transfer of power that lacks an election element) it can pretty much negate any sort of political progress made since the evasion. That's been the whole reason for the surge and the whole reason why American troops are still there -- to offer the security necessary to expedite political progress. That justification will be null if sometime in September Ayad Allawi takes control of and effort to organize the government basically is asked to start over from square one.

That should be enough to send some of the most outspoken of war critics into hysterics. Hell, it should be reason enough to start bringing the troops home, but the absolute mind-boggling thing is that won't happen. There wont be serious plans for a troop withdraw in Iraq until at least January 2009. The President has too much invested in this horror show to pull out between now and then: why would he quit now and thereby accept full responsibility for this fiasco when he can let someone else do it down the line whom Bush can later blame for the failure because he or she did not have the resolve to follow through on Bush's vision?

The only thing that can get President Bush to roll out plans for withdraw would be a hypothetical scenario that could be called the "Ramadan Offensive." Just like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, the RO would be a coordinated, nationwide surprise uprising against American-held positions and forward operating bases across Iraq. From a tactical stand point, something like couldn't be successful, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be devastating and send a very clear message that we are no longer welcome. The American public would notice and say, 'Enough is enough.'

But that won't happen. There are too many elements in Iraq too busy fighting each other to be able to coordinate a necessarily massive operation of that nature. So we're stuck there until someone else moves in to the White House and every day that goes by between now and then the U.S. is diminishing it's stature in the world, destroying its military, and further inflaming resentment among potential terrorists around the world -- and that's just on the days when the administration isn't doing anything absolutely insane, like planning a coup.

MORE: From the Hill:

When President Bush stands in front of the cameras and tells the world you’re doing a great job, that’s your cue to run for the hills. It means you’re a marked man.

[...]

I knew then and there Maliki should start running for the hills. That kind of public support from President Bush can only mean one thing: Maliki is a marked man.

I'm going to put on my gambling hat on now and say it'll happen in September, because -- as Andrew Card would say -- "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."