George Bush and the "October Surprise"
A Major Talent out there asks the following question:
"Unless someone can explain why August was too early, December is too late, but October is just right, it's clear that the administration is playing politics with Iraq."
Wel, fools rush in, so here I go. First, way back after the State of The Union speech when Iraq was mentioned as member of the "Axis of Evil", the Times speculated as to when military action against Iraq might start. We needed to restore our inventory of smart munitions following Afghanistan, and no one could imagine US troops fighting in Iraq in biochem suits in the summertime. So, Autumn at the earliest. The best months for fighting would probably be December to February, if the military option becomes necessary.
As to Bush's timing of his diplomatic and political push:
August? Europe was on vacation, Congress was in recess, the President was on vacation, Andrew Sullivan was on vacation - what if you gave a foreign policy address and nobody came?
December? Well, the diplomatic portion of the follow through (the technical term is "fandango") might take four months. This means military action could not start until April, with a risk of action running into the summer. Furthermore, Hannukah and Christmas take away the last two weeks of the month, and Congress is either out, or lame-duck. Not a great choice.
November? Ramadan runs from early November to early December. Terrible month to round up Muslim allies.
October? Let's note that, if Bush had waited until October, we would be hearing this same question of "October surprise, cheap politics". Supplemented, no doubt, by cries of "Imperial Presidency", since Congress would be in recess. Not a compelling choice.
And September? Do we arrive here by default? Hardly, since a strong positive case can be made for September. Congress is in session and can address the issue with legislation. Perhaps more importantly, the UN General Assembly opens. Normally, that happens in late September. However, the US asked that it be moved up to September 12. Many Heads of State were in New York for the 9/11 observance, so it fit their schedules. And what a great psychological advantage for Bush, to have delegates go from Ground Zero to the UN, where Bush could say "Never again". Finally, with a September 12 launch, there is ample time for the diplomatic process to unfold.
So, there it is. The Post-cogs have arrived at a decision, and there is no Minority Report.
Now, I have a bit of additional news, although I would like you to put down your coffee or Coca-cola before continuing.
Karl Rove fought this timing every step of the way!
OH, you know he didn't. But when life hands you lemonade, drink up. The politics works great for Bush, but if Rove had never attended a meeting, September 12 would still have been the day.
Fine, so we are wise as owls after the fact. Well, here is a new project for someone. The launch of Desert Storm was influenced by the lunar cycle - the US military likes to fight with a full moon, or a new moon, or something. Has to do with our relative advantage in night vision technology. I can not claim Steven Den Beste as a regular reader, nor he me, but this is his sort of topic. Anyway, check the dates for Desert Storm, research our military preferences, check the calendar, and you can pinpoint the start of a war in Iraq to within a couple of days in January, or in February. Weird, huh?
