Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

2) there would then be a short, intense period of combat operations and

3) there would be an immediate drawdown in military forces from a nation subdued.

What the Bush Administration did NOT expect was a major insurgency that would effectively prevent the planned immediate drawdown.

Even after the insurgency appeared, the administration continued to believe that the insurgents would be dealt with in a matter of months -- so they did nothing. They maintained a force that was simply too small to handle the situation. And when those who knew better suggested increasing the number of troops deployed, the administration scoffed. They remained convinced that such a move was unwarranted since the matter would soon be under control.

They were wrong.

So the situation grew more daunting. All the while, a resurgent Taliban continued to vex our military in Afghanistan as the number of U.S. troops available for 'unexpected operations' in other regional hotspots dwindled.

To complicate matters, the extended nature of the Iraq incursion created a situation where entire army divisions are being required to take on second 1-year tours of duty. That is a problem because, as one division enters Iraq, the division being replaced must rest, rebuild, and integrate new technologies, techniques and personnel. This means that, for every army division fighting in Iraq, there is another entire division on the sidelines -- unavailable for deployment elsewhere until their overhaul is complete.

This Iraq-induced constriction of military might would, in other times, invite calls for the draft. Not so in an age where political survival trumps the practical requirements of an extended military occupation.

Alternatively, a drawdown and near-term exit is not an administration consideration, not because it would leave Iraq in chaos, but rather because that chaos would create a vacuum inviting unwanted Iranian elements as the new stewards of a demolished nation.

So there we are in Iraq -- a perilous position created through deception and incompetence -- costing hundreds of thousands of lives, untold billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and our nation's ability to maneuver in worldly affairs.

Bush Impotence

As George Friedman, head of the private global intelligence firm Stratfor put it:

"Diplomacy without even the distant possibility of military action is impotent."

Diplomatic and Military Impotence is what the Bush administration has wrought for America.

And North Korea, Iran, and Russia have taken advantage of it.

First, North Korea

In his effort to deal with North Korea and Iran, Bush is looking to Russia, China, Japan and South Korea to take the reigns. Similarly with Iran, Bush has reached out to Russia and other European nations to lead the parade.

These multi-lateral efforts, however, are not sought by choice, but rather by necessity since the possibility of unilateral action by the United States no longer exists to back up the administration's rhetoric.

Because of this, neither North Korea nor Iran need take the Administration's diplomatic efforts seriously.

This past week, Kim Jong Il took advantage of Bush's weakness. They saw that the Iraq/Afghanistan entanglements, exacerbated by the political scandals racking Republicans prior to an election created a scenario where risks for them were small. They understand that the geography of the Korean peninsula dissuades Bush from striking  -- an act that would likely result in the DPRK's massive artillery assault on Seoul, just over the border. Not unnoticed, of course, is the fact that Bush has drawn down forces from South Korea in order to reinforce troops in Iraq.

Russia too has seen Bush's weakness and taken advantage. In response to a conflict spawned from espionage allegations, Russia established a blockade to neighboring sovereignty Georgia's air, rail, sea and postal service. Georgia is a U.S. ally and Russia could care less. Indeed, Russia has responded with a flagrant disregard for the Bush Administration's view on the issue making it clear that Moscow has no fear of a U.S. reprisal.

The Russians know we need their cooperation on issues involving North Korea and Iran. And they know that our diplomatic and militaristic incapacity have put us in a compromised position. In essence, they see themselves as virtually invulnerable to American scrutiny -- an unfortunate turnabout from a time when the U.S. was militarily and financially unfettered.

So Bush has a choice if he decides to reestablish America's standing in world affairs. He can either significantly increase the capability of the U.S. military or decrease their commitment in Iraq. If he does nothing, our nation's ability to influence other global events will severely diminish.

To be sure, there are no restrictions to the U.S.'s ability to defend itself in the event of an attack. Such a circumstance would eliminate concern for Bush's other 'global distractions' and focus our resources where they are needed in defense of our nation. The world knows that.

Where the damage lies is in our ability to influence serious global issues -- something that has been abused and dismissed by an administration bent on asserting our military might for dubious ends -- an administration that has lost sight of the issues truly important to the prosperity and well-being of our nation.

In the end, the Republicans will continue to assert that their party is the one best equipped to protect the American citizenry and lead our nation through the trials of a post-9/11 world.

The truth, however, points to the exact opposite -- that the Bush administration and their Republican rubberstamps have skewered our nation's ability to effectively influence international affairs. They've annihilated our military flexibility. And they've short-sheeted our national security as a result.

Bush and the Republicans are weak. Their weakness has hobbled America's standing in the world and they've allowed various elements to take advantage of the position that Bush has inflicted upon us.

In contrast, Democrats offer a more commonsense approach to foreign policy -- focusing on the true problems at hand with a purposeful, drawdown and eventual withdrawal from Iraq -- freeing our military and other resources so that we may refocus on legitimate national security and international diplomacy issues -- targeting Al Qaeda, bolstering our nation's 'first response' teams, and generally empowering our nation through constant and direct interaction with both allies and enemies.

In November, we can save our nation by putting Democrats back in office. At a minimum, such a move would mitigate the spectacularly disastrous policies of the current party in power.