Different, yes. But not good.

From an analysis by veteran New York Times writer R.W. Apple:

"Saddam won't win," said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States representative at the United Nations. "Unlike L.B.J. in Vietnam, Bush won't quit. He's a different kind of Texan. He'll escalate and keep escalating. In the end his military strategy will probably succeed in destroying Saddam.

"But it may result in a Muslim jihad against us and our friends. Achieving our narrow objective of regime change may take so long and trigger so many consequences that it's no victory at all. Our ultimate goal, which is promoting stability in the Middle East, may well prove elusive."

There's something to this characterization of Bush. After all, the reason he exercises the powers of the Presidency today is because he "wouldn't quit". Sure, his obstinate stubborness probably hurt the Constitution, the country, and his own party in the long run... But he wasn't willing to let his overgrown teenaged enthusiasm be limited by anything as adult as duty, honor, country, that sort of thing.

The problem here is, LBJ didn't just "quit". He cut his losses. He got out before Vietnam became even worse.

I think Holbrooke is absolutely right. Bush doesn't seem able to be rational in that way. He seems to believe that everything will sumbit to His Iron Will determination.

Which works just fine, as long as everyone is willing to play along to the script. Like, say, Democrats willing to put peace within the nation before personal gain, or better-qualified Republican candidates willing to fold for the sake of peace within the party.

I don't think either the desert or the Iraqi people pay attention to such things, though.

Which means that Bush won't be capable of cutting his losses if things get really bad. He'll keep pressing on, dragging the country along with him.

Which is not good. For anyone.

Here's a shock {cough}

From Reuters:

Report: Rumsfeld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, (the) New Yorker (m)agazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times (emphasis added -- hbo) in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

*-*-*

Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.

"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.