Shields, Brooks React to Middle East Talks Debate, Bush Press Conference on Iraq

RAY SUAREZ:

And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

And, Mark, the president's announcement to the country of the new way forward in Iraq is going to have to wait until next year, but he did talk to reporters earlier this week for over an hour. What did you see?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

What did I see? I saw the president have a certain rendezvous with reality about the progress or lack thereof in Iraq, saying that the United States is not winning, which was obviously a reversal.

At times, he seemed more relaxed and confident than he had in the past, talking about bipartisan initiatives and cooperation with the Democrats on the Hill.

And then, Ray, he turned a little bit curt and defensive when he was asked of his own legacy and compared to LBJ. But, you know, the reality is that the president has only two options in Iraq: He can either disengage or escalate. And it looks like he is leaning toward a limited version of the second.

RAY SUAREZ:

Though he wouldn't be drawn out, David, on exactly what he has planned.

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times:

Yes, I don't know why he had to go public this week. He had nothing to say. There was this stupid debate about winning and losing, which are totally obsolete terms in this kind of conflict.

But he has a decision inside the administration, which they're now arguing about. And the decision is a plan, really prompted by retired General Jack Keane and others, which is to devote 20,000 or 30,000 troops to Baghdad and finally do the job we haven't done, which is to actually secure the place.

That's to get our troops out of the bases, to put more people in, and secure the place. And the theory is that it still can be secured, and that creates the political room.

My fear is that it's not two options; it's three options. They're going to do a halfhearted attempt at securing the place, which we've been doing for three years, which is like a 70 percent solution, where we've put in a few more troops, pretty limited time.

We don't take people out of the bases and put them in the neighborhoods to secure the neighborhoods. We do it halfway, which is what we've been doing as some sort of compromise measure.

And I don't know which is the right policy, but my advice to Bush would be, if you're going to do the "go large," which is the "do it," or get out, but don't do some sort of halfway "go medium," because that will surely fail.

RAY SUAREZ:

Well, this week there was reporting in the Washington Post that indicated his own service chiefs are very skeptical of a "go large" strategy.

DAVID BROOKS:

Right. And what you have in the military is people in the mid- to low-levels saying, "We need more troops. We need more troops." And Secretary Gates heard some of that this week.

Then the top levels, you have the generals who have been in charge of our troop levels for the past three years. And their theory has been, if we put more troops in, that just inflames the situation. And their second theory is, we can't support the troops we have there.

And so the top generals are pretty much, "Let's stay the course. Let's do what we've been doing." I think, for most outside viewers, that's not working. So either go large or go small, but don't stay the course, which was what General Casey and Abizaid been saying and continue to say.

And it's interesting that this strategy from Keane, this recently retired general, and a whole series of recently retired officers from Tal Afar and other places, have come up with this strategy, saying, "Let's finally do it right."

And so it's gone outside the normal military channels, through the retirees, and gotten straight to the White House.

MARK SHIELDS:

I'd just say — and I think it's becoming increasingly clear — that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq will not postpone, will not alter the inevitability of U.S. disengagement. It will simply postpone that date of that inevitable disengagement.

And the generals are talking about — that George Bush is ignoring, whose counsel he's ignoring right now — are the men he chose. He didn't inherit any of these people. Every one of the generals in a position of leadership right now in Iraq or in the military anywhere was a Bush appointee.

He was nominated, chosen by this White House, chosen by this secretary of defense, the previous secretary of defense. And so, I mean, this isn't like — this is a president who said, "I'm always going to be guided, always going to be determined by the number of troops we use by the commanders in the field."

And now he's saying the commanders in the field are to be ignored. So it is — it's an about-face on his part. But I don't think anybody ought to be kidded that this is going to — that 20,000 troops are going to mean anything in changing the outcome of this war.

DAVID BROOKS:

Well, first of all, I mean…