Every few months we, or the Pakistanis, or somebody, waxes yet another "#2 guy in al Qaeda" or "#3 guy in al Qaeda." Occasionally it's somebody that nobody has ever heard of before, who's never appeared in an al Qaeda membership list or on any of al Qaeda's websites, but whatever. But while contemplating the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this afternoon while out for a walk, it occurred to me to ask: if George Bush were the real "#2 guy in al Qaeda," if he were actually in full agreement with Osama bin Laden's ideology and on the same payroll as bin Laden, could he actually be doing a better job than he is? Is there anything that George Bush could have done that would have advanced al Qaeda's interests, any time in the last four years, that he hasn't done? Rule out things that he couldn't possibly get away with or that he doesn't have the authority to do or that would blow his covert status, his cover, and reveal him to the public as an al Qaeda agent. And then, if you can think of anything he could have done for them that he hasn't done, let me know?

Remove our troops from Saudi Arabia where they were defending the Saudi royal family that bin Laden hates? That was the first item on bin Laden's wish list when he filed his declaration of war, and we did it four years ago this week. Diplomatically support and overtly fund Pakistan's military and intelligence services, the same people that created the Taliban, bin Laden's original hosts in Afghanistan? Done. Withdraw our troops from his escape route so that he could get out of Afghanistan safely when that government fell? Done. Provide him safe haven in northwestern Pakistan, guarantee him and them that we won't come in after him no matter what he does, and prop up the military government that overthrew Pakistan's prior, secular liberal government that might have wanted to do something about him? Done and done. Provide Saudi Arabia and Pakistan substantial financial aid that they funneled to al Qaeda? Done. Directly funded at least one branch of al Qaeda, the Lebanon branch, on the lame excuse that they're supposed to attack Hezbollah for us? Done. Discredit secular democracy throughout the Islamic world by sending sadistic southern prison guards to create and publicly document their own chamber of horrors at Saddam's old torture chamber, Abu Ghraib? Done. But let's not forget the single most useful thing that Bush has done for bin Laden: made him relevant, kept him in the news, by creating the world's single biggest and most anarchic recruiting opportunity for him, by overthrowing bin Laden's 3rd least favorite government in the whole middle east and leaving his people in command of roughly a third of it, while violating the Powell Doctrine so we lose? Done in spades, done (literally) to death.

More people need to remember the Powell Doctrine -- an attempt by America's premier living military strategist to define the minimum pre-requisites for a free democracy like America to win a war, any war. Expanding on the work of prior theorists, Colin Powell's 1992 paper in the policy journal Foreign Affairs laid out 8 conditions that must be met in advance if America is ever to actually win a real war, anything bigger than Ronald Reagan's powerfully silly Grenada campaign, where we sent 10,000 troops to evict 54 mostly-unarmed Cuban advisers. Powell said that for a free country with democratic elections to win an actual shooting war, it has to do all of the following things, that leaving any one of them undone guarantees that we lose:

1. Was one of the US's vital national security interests threatened? No. Bush claimed it was, but we now know that even he knew that this was a lie.
   
   
2. Did we have a clear attainable objective? No. Clear yes; attainable, only in Paul Wolfowitz's masturbatory fantasies, the ones where he was whacking off to the lies that Ahmed Chalabi told him.
   
   
3. Had the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? No. Whenever anybody in the Pentagon or the CIA attempted to do so, attempted to raise the possibility of any outcome or cost other than the sunniest possible projections, they were simply told "that won't happen" without any reason offered to explain why it wouldn't. And they still haven't. The Bush administration's estimate of the financial and human cost rises every few weeks, and each time we're told that nobody could have possibly foreseen the new cost estimates. Which really means nobody tried to foresee the costs, except for the people who did try and were ignored at best, or fired by the White House at worst.
   
   
4. Had all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? No. Several senators have since said that the only reason they were able to be conned into voting for the war powers authorization for this war was because they'd been verbally and privately promised that it was a bluff to back up diplomatic demands on Saddam. As soon as Bush had his war powers authorization, all attempts to resolve the issue diplomatically ceased. The weapons inspectors actively verifying the cease fire terms were yanked while in mid-inspections, for fear that they'd find out that Saddam was in compliance. Saddam's offer to surrender, as recently as the week before the war, was ignored.
   
   
5. Was there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? No. And there still isn't. Even Bush's most optimistic scenario calls for us to base at least some troops in Iraq indefinitely.
   
   
6. Had the consequences of our action been fully considered? No. And they still haven't.
   
   
7. Was the action supported by the American people? Not honestly. The same pre-war polls that reported 68% support for the invasion dropped to 32% when they were asked if they would still support it if America took more than 200 casualties. Unsurprisingly, now that we're over 16 times that many dead and tens of thousands crippled, fewer than 32% support it.
   
   
8. Did we have genuine broad international support? No. We had the UK, and token or half-hearted commitments from a handful of other nations. The genuine broad international support was on the other side.

So by our own military's best analysis, Bush started a war where not even one of the eight minimum prerequisites for victory had been met, let alone all 8. Sure, there are equally plausible excuses that can be offered for why he would start a war that any sane person would know we were going to lose, such as the fact that neither the man nor his top advisers are sane. But if the President of the US were an al Qaeda spy, wouldn't sending us into Iraq to topple the only truly secular Arab state and hamstringing our troops so that they'd be bogged down there and unable to win have been brilliant strategy?

I don't think that George Bush really is on the al Qaeda payroll, on bin Laden's team. As I quoted Robert Heinlein the other day, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." But if he were? Then it would certainly seem to be possible to say that he did a brilliant job, that nobody could possibly have done better. Unless any of you can think of something?