Whose ideas penetrated?

Aha! Our current president (OCP) looks to the experts for his ideas. Mr. Bush brought his original Texas "brain," Karl Rove, with him to Washington. Rove was unable to think well enough to handle the war in Iraq for his boss, or the November election results, either. The American people voted strongly against the war in Iraq.
Others' ideas - It was not long before Congress' Iraq Study Group presented its report on December 6, 2006 with recommendations for change, but OCP felt that it reflected his father's ideas. Quickly OCP started looking around for other brains, other ideas. Bush's new brains became the "Iraq Planning Group," chaired by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Ret. General Jack Keane.
Competition of ideas - In his 1/10/06 post titled, "Thuds and Screams Inside the Topkapi Palace," Brad DeLong summarized a Salon article by Sidney Blumenthal on the nexus between the Iraq Study Group's report and the report of the Iraq Planning Group. The "softening up" included a column by the duo in the Washington Post (12/27/06) titled, " The Right Type of 'Surge' - Any Troop Increase Must Be Large and Lasting," by Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan.
Enter SURGE - Sparks from the Anvil wrote a very interesting post he titled, " 'Surge - a troublesome word.' There appears to be a bit of political brouhaha over the term "surge". Why? Because of the power of euphemisms to sway public opinion."
Group Reports competed & OCP chose SURGE - The IPG's report was released on Jan. 5, 2007 a month after the ISG Report. Before and after the release of their group's report, Keane and Kagan began appearing regularly on news programs as the administration's new "brains." OCP had, predictably, turned to neocons, like-minded "authorities" for the way out. This week OCP unveiled his "new way forward."

We have other ideas - The LA Times story headlined, "Convincing still required for Bush Iraq plan," chronicles the widespread disagreement with the surge plan that had penetrated into Bush's brain. To quote,

One day after President Bush unveiled his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, administration officials today sought to convince a skeptical public and Congress that the strategy can work.
. . . Skepticism to the plan is so widespread — Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) likened the president's strategy to a gambler increasing the size of his bet to cover his previous losses — that even Republicans railed about the war.

Senate hears ideas - Congress began its work immediately with a series of hearings featuring administration spokespersons to explain the "surge" plan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee began yesterday with a 3+ hour grilling of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and ended with hearing a panel of academics ideas about a "U.S. Strategy in Iraq." The panel included Peter Galbraith, Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute, and AEI's Frederick Kagan. Chairman Senator Joseph (D-DE) very smartly balanced two (Galbraith and Carpenter) against one (Kagan). Kagan has a very bland speaking style eerily similar to other neocons I have watched. In contrast, Galbraith and Carpenter sounded more engaged.
Neocon ideas changed into OCP'S "SURGE-LITE." And as a result, the ideas may have evolved into the worst of the worst. After Downing Street explains in this post: "BACKGROUND: Sources of Bush's new Iraq plan think it 'likely to fail' (AP, WP)"

On Wed. morning, the Washington Post reported the president's decision was an "action [Bush's top military brass] initially resisted and advised against."[2] -- The plan to send more troops came from outside: "Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute drafted a plan with retired Army Gen. Jack Keane for sending seven more Army brigades and Marine regiments to Iraq to provide greater security. Keane and several other experts met with Bush on Dec. 11." -- Yet what some are calling Bush's "Keane-Kagan" strategy falls at least 8,500 troops short of what Keane and Kagan have said was the minimum number of troops needed: "Bringing security to Baghdad — the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation, and economic development — is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so," they wrote in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Dec. 27.[3] -- "Any other option is likely to fail," they added. -- "But the Joint Chiefs made clear they could muster 20,000 at best — not for long, and not all at once," the Post reported Wed. morning....

Follow-up to yesterday's post about administration ideas about Iran, the LA Times story "Tough moves on Iranians and Syrians in Iraq planned" elaborates on what might happen with regard to Iran. And to conclude, the Financial Times story "Bush stands alone with ‘new way forward’ " begins and ends with this:

“The president could find himself so isolated so quickly that he would be forced to fundamentally revise his strategy in Iraq, which he has not done,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser under former president Jimmy Carter. “My real fear is that a president who is backed into a corner and prone to demagoguery will listen to the neoconservatives and expand this war to Iran or Syria.”
Polls on Thursday showed an overwhelming majority of Americans opposing Mr Bush’s troop “surge”.
“This administration took a gamble [by going to war in Iraq],” said Barack Obama, a potential Democrat presidential candidate. “It staked American prestige on the premise that it could overthrow a dictator and bring democracy to Iraq. It appears that gamble has failed.”
Stephen Hess, a former Nixon administration official, said Mr Bush was unlikely to be derailed from his chosen course in Iraq.

Technorait tags: bush democrats iran war news news and politics congress biden surge
My "creative post" today at Southwest Blogger is about my brother.