Bush aides lay groundwork for Iraq surge

Two months ago, the nation’s voters handed both houses of Congress to the Democrats in an election that reflected deep discontent with the war in Iraq.

This week, President Bush is responding to voters’ message -- by preparing to escalate the U.S. military commitment in Iraq with a “surge” that would add thousands of troops.

That might sound paradoxical, but aides say Bush’s willingness to send more troops makes sense based on two beliefs that have long guided his war strategy. The first is that the price of leaving Iraq would be greater than the cost of staying. The second is that the public will accept the burdens of war if convinced that success is still possible.

“Is this a war, or is it not a war?” one official asked, previewing an argument the president is likely to make. “If it is, you have to be willing to sacrifice.... Americans are willing to do that as long as we have a clear strategy that offers a chance of success.”

The details of the administration’s surge plan haven’t been disclosed, and officials say some details are still being ironed out. Bush is expected to unveil the plan in a nationally broadcast speech this week, probably Wednesday evening.

But even before the plan’s announcement, Bush aides -- speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid stepping on his lines -- have been describing his thinking and trying out talking points.

Their summary: Bush believes that the United States still has a chance to stop Iraq from descending into civil war -- and, on the other side of the equation, that the consequences of withdrawal would be disastrous. He thinks it’s too early to turn primary responsibility for security in Baghdad over to Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been disappointing.

That leaves Bush with no easy options. But one choice that would keep the hope of victory alive -- a choice that has growing support in the White House -- is a surge aimed at stopping sectarian violence in Baghdad, coupled with rapid political reforms and a U.S.-funded job program to halt the growth of sectarian militias.

Officials said the job program, intended to employ young men who otherwise might join the militias, could cost as much as $1 billion if Congress approves it. The administration’s plan will also include proposals for increased economic aid that would further increase the total bill, they said.

White House officials acknowledge that any surge proposal would meet opposition from critics who say the prospect of success is too low to risk more troops’ lives. But the officials say they believe that most members of the public are still willing to hear Bush out and give him another chance to succeed.

“If you look at the polls, immediately leaving Iraq is not actually a popular option,” one White House aide said. “Everybody figures that anxiety about the war ... means ‘get out.’ But public opinion is more complex than that.”

If Bush decides to send more troops, he will argue that the deployment is part of a broader change in strategy that offers a new chance of success, aides said.

“A president does have the ability to persuade,” one added.

One official involved in the administration’s policy discussion described it this way: “There are several strategic options to choose from. Do we cut and leave, and attempt to exit gracefully? Do we adjust the current strategy and be patient? Do we keep the current strategy without any adjustment? Or do we try to change the dynamic by increasing the troop levels and changing the strategy?

“Given an ample supply of patience on the part of the American people, [the current strategy] would work. However, the president now knows that there’s not an ample supply of patience on the part of the American people.... So he has to change the dynamic.... Does he do it by reducing troops and withdrawing, or does he change the mix in a different way?”

If Bush does propose a surge, that will amount to his rejection of two options proposed in recent weeks. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, opposed an increase in U.S. troops and called for a quicker transfer of responsibility to Iraqi forces. He is to retire in March.

A commission led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) called for a strategy similar to Abizaid’s and added that most U.S. combat forces should be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2008. Bush has privately dismissed its recommendations as useless.

Aides said that if Bush opted for a surge of troops, it should not surprise anyone who paid attention to his public statements about Iraq.

“Victory in Iraq is achievable,” the president told reporters two weeks ago. “It hasn’t happened nearly as quickly as I hoped.... A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.”

In October, Bush told a group of conservative columnists he believed that the public would support the war as long as it thought success was possible.

“People want to know, Can you win? They’re with us if we can win,” he said. “I’m from Texas. My buddies are saying, ‘Are you doing enough?’ not ‘Are you doing too little?’ They want to know, this mighty country ... are we doing what it takes to win?”

Duke University public opinion scholar Christopher Gelpi, who has advised the Bush White House, said the administration faced an uphill battle.

“I think the public will be very unhappy with a surge proposal in the short term,” he said. “Pressure for withdrawal was increasing before the election, and it’s gotten even higher since the election. The Bush administration is unlikely to turn that around in the short term.

“If the White House is trying to say the election of 2006 was not a repudiation of the president’s Iraq policy, that’s not right,” Gelpi added. “The election was a repudiation.”

Still, he said, if a surge in troops succeeds in improving conditions in Iraq, public support for the war will probably increase. “If it works, the public will come around,” Gelpi said. “I think he is pushing for a surge because he is willing to ride out public dissatisfaction in the short term, in hopes that he can improve the situation on the ground in Iraq and succeed in the long term.... In that sense, it’s understandable.”

But time may be short, Gelpi warned. “The quicker and sharper they can show some effect, the less the cost in U.S. lives is likely to matter,” he said. “If it takes a year to show results, that’s a real problem.”

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll conducted in December found that 52% of Americans favored a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, 26% supported keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary and 12% favored sending more troops. That survey did not ask about immediate withdrawal, but a CNN poll in December showed 21% favored such a plan.

Lawmakers from both parties -- Democrats emboldened to oppose the war and the GOP worried about its 2008 electoral prospects -- expressed skepticism about Bush’s plans last week.

“No matter what [Bush] does, he’ll get chewed on,” said an aide to GOP congressional leadership, speaking on condition of anonymity. “If he calls for a surge, he’ll get chewed on. If he doesn’t, he’ll get chewed on.”

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, a moderate Democrat who was one of 15 senators who met with Bush on Friday to share their concerns, said: “The president has ... the burden of proof to give specific reasons and clear direction if, in fact, he’s going to call for a troop surge. What that surge would do, how big it would be, how long the troops would stay, what cities, what neighborhoods, what his specific mission was -- I think the American people’s patience is wearing thin with vagueness.”

Several Republicans, including Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have also expressed reservations about a surge plan.

As many as 10 of the Senate’s 49 Republicans are either against or skeptical about the idea of a surge, the congressional aide said. “It would take a lot of specifics and a shorter-than-two-years time frame to bring them on board,” the aide said.

In remarks last week, Bush suggested he would try to provide the details -- although aides said he still rejected the idea of a fixed timetable. “One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure that the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished,” Bush said in a question-and-answer session with reporters.

Though most senators at Friday’s White House meeting said they opposed any troop increase, they also suggested they were at least partially open to persuasion -- even the Democrats.

“I would say that they were all opposed to it unless he comes up with some spectacular idea and a way to measure that idea,” said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark). “They weren’t unequivocally against it, but most would say ... the burden of proof was on the president.”

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Bush advisors, the remix

President Bush is expected to announce this week an increase in troops to Iraq. Meanwhile, he is reorganizing his top foreign policy, intelligence and war advisors. Some of the changes and nominations:

---

Head of U.S. Central Command

IN

Navy Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon

First Navy officer to take over the Middle East command. Now commands U.S. forces in East Asia and the Pacific.

OUT

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid

Was primary architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan; resisted calls to increase troop levels. Retiring.

---

U.S. ground commander in Iraq

IN

Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus

Supervised work on the new Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual.

OUT

Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr.

Had argued against an increase in troops but reversed his position last month.

---

Director of national intelligence

IN

Navy Vice Adm. J. Michael McConnell

Former director of the National Security Agency; private consultant for the last decade on intelligence and technology issues.

OUT

John D. Negroponte

First occupant of the position, created two years ago; spent much of his tenure trying to consolidate control over the intelligence community.

---

Deputy secretary of State

IN

John D. Negroponte

Served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before the Iraq invasion; was first U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

OUT

Robert B. Zoellick

Worked on the U.S. efforts to end violence in Darfur and to shape China policy; quit to join an investment firm.

---

Ambassador to Iraq

IN

Ryan Crocker

Ambassador to Pakistan since October 2004; previously ambassador to Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon.

OUT

Zalmay Khalilzad

Ambassador to Iraq since June 2005; was first U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, his country of birth.

---

U.N. ambassador

IN

Zalmay Khalilzad

Likely nominee has less confrontational style than his predecessor; brings knowledge of Arab culture and Iraq factions.

OUT

John R. Bolton

Resigned last month when it became clear he lacked the Senate backing necessary to remain in the post.

---

Defense secretary

IN

Robert M. Gates

At Bush’s request, Gates is preparing plans for a more muscular military; funding of an expansion is likely in the upcoming budget request.

OUT

Donald H. Rumsfeld

Lightning rod for criticism of war; stepped down after the midterm election. Had advocated leaner military force.

---

Army chief of staff

IN

George W. Casey Jr.

If the president moves forward with plans to increase troop levels in Iraq, Casey would oversee an Army expansion.

OUT

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker

Uncertain, but not pessimistic, about victory in Iraq. Made a priority of training U.S. troops to serve as advisors to Iraqis.