George W. Bush is rather lonely these days. Few Republicans on the Hill are championing his escalation in Iraq. Many military experts--and soldiers on the ground--are skeptical. Editorial pages are not with him. I ran into one Pentagon consultant recently and when I half-joked that there are only seven people in Washington who support Bush's Iraq policy, he replied, "No, it's six. They lost a guy this morning."

Meanwhile, the recent issue of Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute (which is not yet posted) contains an interesting article by retired Major General Robert Scales, a war strategy expert often seen as a commentator on Fox News, and retired Colonel Robert Killebrew, an expert on military doctrine. These two men--hardly doves--question the strategic wisdom behind Bush's war in Iraq. In considering what to do about the threat posed by Islamic jihadism, the pair write:

We must hold back with discretion, patience, empathy, and a sublimated sense of global superiority. All radical movements that rely on violence against innocents to achieve their ends contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction. Over time radicals must attempt ever more shocking and extreme attacks to trump the last atrocity in order to force radicalization on all fronts.

Confronting radical Islamists directly with episodic violent excursions inflames passions of millions of its followers. Such operations may produce more recruits than the violence destroys. Sometimes the stakes are worth the cost--as in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. But usually containment and prevention are stronger medicines. An aggressive military strategy actually militates against the natural currents of history by encouraging and prolonging religious zeal and eroding the very values of stability that we seek to reinforce.

Is Bush, with his unpopular and unproductive war in Iraq, leading the nation and the military to a post-post-9/11 phase that emphasizes cooperation, multilateralism, diplomacy, and nonviolent approaches? Talk about unintended consequences.

Posted by David Corn at January 17, 2007 11:32 AM