Today, with the next President among the questioners, the stars of the Iraq spectacle come to Capitol Hill for their final performance of the Bush era.
Knowing that, unless McCain walks on water in November, the time for an honest reckoning is here, how will David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker face the chasm between Bush intransigence and an Obama (or Clinton) mandate to bring down the curtain?
"Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous," Gen. David Petraeus told Congress last September. "The events of the past six months underscore that point."
But the time for adlibbing is gone, and the two maestros of the Maliki show are going to have to explain the recent misadventure in Basra--the botched offensive against the militias, the mass desertions in the Iraqi forces and the intervention of Iran in temporarily reining in al-Sadr.
Having bought off Sunnis in Anbar, how much will it take to pay off Shiites in Basra, and what are the chances they will stay bought?
The Republicans up for reelection are hearing voters' footsteps. At a hearing last week, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman asked, "How do we get out of this mess?" A colleague, who preferred anonymity, added "We can't just say we're coasting through and waiting for the next president."
After his triumphant tour of past glories, John McCain is still in some imaginary realm, expressing support for the Basra attack but, on Fox News, suggesting that "al-Maliki should have waited until fighting subsided in Mosul.
“Look, I didn’t particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively.”
As the American death toll starts rising again, McCain won't be asking any tough questions today, but the Democrats who expect to take over the White House and expand their control of Congress next year should be insisting on straight answers now.
Showing posts with label troop withdrawal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label troop withdrawal. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Iraq's Cruelest Month Coming Up
Next week, against a backdrop of cherry blossoms on the Potomac, we will get the latest Petraeus-Crocker production of "Blood and Sand" for an audience of the hollow men and women in both houses of Congress.
When they get here, the General and the Ambassador will no doubt give us another suave performance to explain the latest twist in the Mideast theater of the absurd--how our Iraqi lawmakers have been in Iran appealing to the head of the Revolutionary Guard, branded a terrorist organization by Congress last August, to persuade Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop killing people in Baghdad and Basra.
If all this feels like being trapped in an endless Pinter play, consider the recent monologues of Andrew Cordesman, one of our most knowledgeable observers. Last summer, describing Iraq as "three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you," he made a cautious case for starting to withdraw troops early this year. A month ago, another trip to Iraq and Afghanistan persuaded him that "these are wars that can still be won" if we stay another decade or more.
Today Cordesman describes "worrisome possibilities" that could deny us "victory" in Iraq--the cooperating Sunni tribes and militias could turn against the central government, ethnic conflicts to control territory in the north could lead to fighting in Kirkuk, Mosul and other areas and the political struggle between the dominant Shiite parties could become an armed conflict. (Could? Check the headlines.)
In 2004, as a division commander, Gen.Petraeus was asking a question to which he clearly had no answer, “Tell me how this ends.” Last year, he was telling us that "we can't shoot our way out of Iraq." No matter what he has to say now, how do we persuade him and Congress to stop sleepwalking with Bush toward the edge of another precipice?
When they get here, the General and the Ambassador will no doubt give us another suave performance to explain the latest twist in the Mideast theater of the absurd--how our Iraqi lawmakers have been in Iran appealing to the head of the Revolutionary Guard, branded a terrorist organization by Congress last August, to persuade Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop killing people in Baghdad and Basra.
If all this feels like being trapped in an endless Pinter play, consider the recent monologues of Andrew Cordesman, one of our most knowledgeable observers. Last summer, describing Iraq as "three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you," he made a cautious case for starting to withdraw troops early this year. A month ago, another trip to Iraq and Afghanistan persuaded him that "these are wars that can still be won" if we stay another decade or more.
Today Cordesman describes "worrisome possibilities" that could deny us "victory" in Iraq--the cooperating Sunni tribes and militias could turn against the central government, ethnic conflicts to control territory in the north could lead to fighting in Kirkuk, Mosul and other areas and the political struggle between the dominant Shiite parties could become an armed conflict. (Could? Check the headlines.)
In 2004, as a division commander, Gen.Petraeus was asking a question to which he clearly had no answer, “Tell me how this ends.” Last year, he was telling us that "we can't shoot our way out of Iraq." No matter what he has to say now, how do we persuade him and Congress to stop sleepwalking with Bush toward the edge of another precipice?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
McCain's Hundred Year War
He is not talking about Iraq on the campaign trail, but John McCain has a good deal to say in today's Wall Street Journal on the first anniversary of the Surge.
So much, in fact, that he needs his Senate colleague, Joe Lieberman, to help him do the heavy lifting in proclaiming, "The Surge Worked," that "conditions in that country have been utterly transformed...al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed."
Yesterday, the US military announced, six American soldiers were killed when a house rigged with explosives blew up north of Baghdad during a new offensive targeting al Qaeda guerrillas, adding to the more than 835 who have died since last February.
The gains in Iraq, McCain tells us, "are thrilling but not yet permanent. Political progress has been slow. And although al Qaeda and the other extremists in Iraq have been dealt a critical blow, they will strike back at the Iraqi people and us if we give them the chance, as our generals on the ground continue to warn us."
If we wait until President McCain takes office next January, perhaps he will tell us then how many troops we will have to keep there for how long (perhaps less than the 100 years he recently mentioned). Maybe he will reveal his plans to speed up the "slow" political progress in a small country that keeps draining the lives of our most patriotic young people and billions of dollars that could be saving and improving lives back here.
In his Wall Street Journal victory lap, McCain concedes that "mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government's capacity for incompetence." Voters are going to want to know how, sharing Bush's blindness about our interests in the Middle East, McCain is going to do better.
Certainly not by making Joe Lieberman his Secretary of State.
So much, in fact, that he needs his Senate colleague, Joe Lieberman, to help him do the heavy lifting in proclaiming, "The Surge Worked," that "conditions in that country have been utterly transformed...al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed."
Yesterday, the US military announced, six American soldiers were killed when a house rigged with explosives blew up north of Baghdad during a new offensive targeting al Qaeda guerrillas, adding to the more than 835 who have died since last February.
The gains in Iraq, McCain tells us, "are thrilling but not yet permanent. Political progress has been slow. And although al Qaeda and the other extremists in Iraq have been dealt a critical blow, they will strike back at the Iraqi people and us if we give them the chance, as our generals on the ground continue to warn us."
If we wait until President McCain takes office next January, perhaps he will tell us then how many troops we will have to keep there for how long (perhaps less than the 100 years he recently mentioned). Maybe he will reveal his plans to speed up the "slow" political progress in a small country that keeps draining the lives of our most patriotic young people and billions of dollars that could be saving and improving lives back here.
In his Wall Street Journal victory lap, McCain concedes that "mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government's capacity for incompetence." Voters are going to want to know how, sharing Bush's blindness about our interests in the Middle East, McCain is going to do better.
Certainly not by making Joe Lieberman his Secretary of State.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Petraeus: "Can't Kill Our Way Out"
In a place some Americans may have heard about long, long ago, our man in charge is still trying to figure out how to pacify a country where enemies and allies keep changing all the time and hand their political hot potato back to them.
In an interview with Foreign Policy, Gen. David Petraeus says "the Iraqis have formed 160,000 police, soldiers, border police, and other security force elements during the past year. To be sure, there’s an uneven nature to their quality, to their capability, and to their level of training and equipping, but they’re significant in quantity.
"And quantity does mean quality in counterinsurgency operations, because you’ve got to secure so many infrastructures against the terrorist and insurgent and militia elements...(O)nly when they can handle it we will have this transfer."
Asked about working with former enemies, Petraeus makes a distinction: "Some were what we call fence-sitters; some were oppressed and some probably were shooting at us, but you don’t kill your way out of this kind of thing. You can’t kill or capture everybody in an insurgency. What you have to figure out are the irreconcilables, and ideally you want these numbers as small as possible because they have to be killed, captured, or run off."
When will that be? The General can't say. Meanwhile, the number of confirmed US deaths has passed the 3900 mark. Killing our way out is not a one-way street.
When the Presidential candidates start debating "victory" in Iraq, maybe Petraeus can tell them--and us--exactly what we have won.
In an interview with Foreign Policy, Gen. David Petraeus says "the Iraqis have formed 160,000 police, soldiers, border police, and other security force elements during the past year. To be sure, there’s an uneven nature to their quality, to their capability, and to their level of training and equipping, but they’re significant in quantity.
"And quantity does mean quality in counterinsurgency operations, because you’ve got to secure so many infrastructures against the terrorist and insurgent and militia elements...(O)nly when they can handle it we will have this transfer."
Asked about working with former enemies, Petraeus makes a distinction: "Some were what we call fence-sitters; some were oppressed and some probably were shooting at us, but you don’t kill your way out of this kind of thing. You can’t kill or capture everybody in an insurgency. What you have to figure out are the irreconcilables, and ideally you want these numbers as small as possible because they have to be killed, captured, or run off."
When will that be? The General can't say. Meanwhile, the number of confirmed US deaths has passed the 3900 mark. Killing our way out is not a one-way street.
When the Presidential candidates start debating "victory" in Iraq, maybe Petraeus can tell them--and us--exactly what we have won.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Dr. Paul Wants to Amputate
If you consulted Ron Paul as a doctor, you would be lucky to leave with all your limbs. The man is not an incrementalist. Cut out the income tax, he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press today, bring home our troops from everywhere and, with only a few caveats, Dr. Paul doesn't see much more value in the FBI, CIA, public schools and Social Security than tonsils or the appendix.
But the man who raised $19 million in two months is no crackpot. He has clearly tapped into a vein of voter discontent, and his opposition to US military and fiscal over-involvement all over the world deserves serious consideration.
Yet Paul's arguments come wrapped in a dogmatic personality with impatience about detail and with anyone who questions contradictions in his record. He insisted Russert was "confused" when asked about the apparent contradiction between Paul's theories and all the pork he collects for his district. "I vote against it," he said, "but that's the system."
Paul seems to find Mike Huckabee's sudden ascent galling and, while hedging his "fascism" response to the new front runner's commercial with the cross, complained about a general "softer fascism: loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous."
Ron Paul sounds like a right-leaning Ralph Nader, and it remains to be seen if, in the Republican primaries or as an independent candidate, he exerts as much influence on the outcome of next year's elections as Nader did in taking votes from Al Gore and electing Bush in 2000.
But the man who raised $19 million in two months is no crackpot. He has clearly tapped into a vein of voter discontent, and his opposition to US military and fiscal over-involvement all over the world deserves serious consideration.
Yet Paul's arguments come wrapped in a dogmatic personality with impatience about detail and with anyone who questions contradictions in his record. He insisted Russert was "confused" when asked about the apparent contradiction between Paul's theories and all the pork he collects for his district. "I vote against it," he said, "but that's the system."
Paul seems to find Mike Huckabee's sudden ascent galling and, while hedging his "fascism" response to the new front runner's commercial with the cross, complained about a general "softer fascism: loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous."
Ron Paul sounds like a right-leaning Ralph Nader, and it remains to be seen if, in the Republican primaries or as an independent candidate, he exerts as much influence on the outcome of next year's elections as Nader did in taking votes from Al Gore and electing Bush in 2000.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Happy Holidays, Senators
Before leaving for Thanksgiving, Congressional Democrats promised not to give President Bush more money for Iraq without deadlines for withdrawal.
Now they are slinking out of Washington for Christmas after providing $70 billion in unrestricted funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.
"When is enough enough?" asked Ted Kennedy, who supported an amendment to require troop withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of combat funds within nine months. "I urge my colleagues to vote against this gigantic blank check." By a vote of 76-17, they didn't.
Russ Feingold's troop-withdrawal amendment failed by 74-21. None of the Democratic Presidential candidates was there to support it.
On his way out the door, Trent Lott, the Republican whip, insisted "we're doing the right thing here for our men and women in uniform," handing in his resignation to do the right thing for Trent Lott before lobbying restrictions on former Senators get tougher.
For the American people who voted last November to end the war, they leave behind stockings stuffed with lumps of coal. If we're really good next year, maybe we can get our own President for Christmas.
Now they are slinking out of Washington for Christmas after providing $70 billion in unrestricted funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.
"When is enough enough?" asked Ted Kennedy, who supported an amendment to require troop withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of combat funds within nine months. "I urge my colleagues to vote against this gigantic blank check." By a vote of 76-17, they didn't.
Russ Feingold's troop-withdrawal amendment failed by 74-21. None of the Democratic Presidential candidates was there to support it.
On his way out the door, Trent Lott, the Republican whip, insisted "we're doing the right thing here for our men and women in uniform," handing in his resignation to do the right thing for Trent Lott before lobbying restrictions on former Senators get tougher.
For the American people who voted last November to end the war, they leave behind stockings stuffed with lumps of coal. If we're really good next year, maybe we can get our own President for Christmas.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
"And That's the Way It Is..."
After the Tet offensive in early 1968, the Most Trusted Man in America announced the war in Vietnam could not be won. "If I've lost Cronkite," the President of the United States said, "I've lost America" and conceded by announcing he wouldn't run for reelection.
Walter Cronkite is 91 now, and George W. Bush is no Lyndon Johnson, but America's news nanny, who tucked us in every evening for two decades by ending the CBS Evening News with "And that's the way it is," has declared "Our Troops Must Leave Iraq."
In a piece co-written and appearing in print, Cronkite's voice is still being heard. In the Japan Times, on the eve of Pearl Harbor day, he concludes:
"Congress must act. Although Congress never declared war, as required by the Constitution, they did give the president the authority to invade Iraq. Congress must now withdraw that authority and cease its funding of the war.
"It is not likely, however, that Congress will act unless the American people make their voices heard with unmistakable clarity. That is the way the Vietnam War was brought to an end. It is the way that the Iraq War will also be brought to an end. The only question is whether it will be now, or whether the war will drag on, with all the suffering that implies, to an even more tragic, costly and degrading defeat. We will be a better, stronger and more decent country to bring the troops home now."
Trust is not what it used to be, and age has diminished the reach of Cronkite's voice, but he is still trying to tell America how it is.
Walter Cronkite is 91 now, and George W. Bush is no Lyndon Johnson, but America's news nanny, who tucked us in every evening for two decades by ending the CBS Evening News with "And that's the way it is," has declared "Our Troops Must Leave Iraq."
In a piece co-written and appearing in print, Cronkite's voice is still being heard. In the Japan Times, on the eve of Pearl Harbor day, he concludes:
"Congress must act. Although Congress never declared war, as required by the Constitution, they did give the president the authority to invade Iraq. Congress must now withdraw that authority and cease its funding of the war.
"It is not likely, however, that Congress will act unless the American people make their voices heard with unmistakable clarity. That is the way the Vietnam War was brought to an end. It is the way that the Iraq War will also be brought to an end. The only question is whether it will be now, or whether the war will drag on, with all the suffering that implies, to an even more tragic, costly and degrading defeat. We will be a better, stronger and more decent country to bring the troops home now."
Trust is not what it used to be, and age has diminished the reach of Cronkite's voice, but he is still trying to tell America how it is.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Losing the Anti-War War
Evidence that the Iraq narrative has turned is everywhere.
“Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq,” a Wall Street Journal headline enthuses this weekend, claiming that “highly respected officers including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.”
The Washington Post reports “The Next Challenge in Iraq,” quoting Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command:
"I look at the numbers, and I say the success that General Petraeus and the guys have made is amazing. But how do we leverage that to get the Iraqi government to take decisions that will provide enduring security? How do we help them take advantage of this?"
The Los Angeles Times cites, “Tough going for antiwar Republicans,” reporting that “Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.”
How much our situation in Iraq has changed is highly debatable, but the battle is Washington seems to be lost. What do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do now?
Bush’s stubbornness and their own ineffectual legislative maneuvering have put them in a bind. To persist in railing against the war may only feed charges that they are “defeatist.” To back off efforts to get us out of Iraq will enrage those who gave them control of Congress to do just that.
In coming months, they will undoubtedly concentrate on domestic issues--health insurance, housing, tax reform--to persuade voters that Democrats can get something done.
Meanwhile, the dying in Iraq goes on. The numbers may be slightly smaller, but the blood is just as real as it was before Americans lost hope of stopping it anytime soon.
“Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq,” a Wall Street Journal headline enthuses this weekend, claiming that “highly respected officers including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.”
The Washington Post reports “The Next Challenge in Iraq,” quoting Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command:
"I look at the numbers, and I say the success that General Petraeus and the guys have made is amazing. But how do we leverage that to get the Iraqi government to take decisions that will provide enduring security? How do we help them take advantage of this?"
The Los Angeles Times cites, “Tough going for antiwar Republicans,” reporting that “Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.”
How much our situation in Iraq has changed is highly debatable, but the battle is Washington seems to be lost. What do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do now?
Bush’s stubbornness and their own ineffectual legislative maneuvering have put them in a bind. To persist in railing against the war may only feed charges that they are “defeatist.” To back off efforts to get us out of Iraq will enrage those who gave them control of Congress to do just that.
In coming months, they will undoubtedly concentrate on domestic issues--health insurance, housing, tax reform--to persuade voters that Democrats can get something done.
Meanwhile, the dying in Iraq goes on. The numbers may be slightly smaller, but the blood is just as real as it was before Americans lost hope of stopping it anytime soon.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Our Most Serious Loss
The figures are by now familiar, a downward spiral of public faith in the President, Congress, the entire Federal government. But the latest Gallup figures show something more ominous--Americans losing trust in themselves.
Politicians come and go, but voters have always been sure they could correct mistakes at the ballot box. But now only 70 percent of Americans trust the public's ability to perform its role in a democratic government, down from 78 percent two years ago and much lower than any other previous Gallup reading.
These figures suggest a growing crisis of confidence that won’t be resolved by a change in the White House. As leading Democratic candidates now waver over promising to have our troops out by 2013 and the President goes cheerfully along his “What? Me Worry?” way, Iraq is beginning to feel like flypaper, keeping us from moving ahead on other national issues such as health care, education, economic uncertainty and social justice.
Before 9/11, we lived in a confident, even cocky, society. How do we get back the trust we lost in ourselves and one another?
Politicians come and go, but voters have always been sure they could correct mistakes at the ballot box. But now only 70 percent of Americans trust the public's ability to perform its role in a democratic government, down from 78 percent two years ago and much lower than any other previous Gallup reading.
These figures suggest a growing crisis of confidence that won’t be resolved by a change in the White House. As leading Democratic candidates now waver over promising to have our troops out by 2013 and the President goes cheerfully along his “What? Me Worry?” way, Iraq is beginning to feel like flypaper, keeping us from moving ahead on other national issues such as health care, education, economic uncertainty and social justice.
Before 9/11, we lived in a confident, even cocky, society. How do we get back the trust we lost in ourselves and one another?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Bush's Plan B
For years, the Administration ducked and weaved to avoid allowing the morning-after pill called Plan B to become available to Americans facing the consequences of imprudence, mishaps or poor judgment.
Now President Bush, faced with his own need for a Plan B in Iraq, is unwilling to abort his misbegotten war.
The crux of the analogy is that the man who self-righteously wants individuals to take responsibility for their mistakes keeps denying his own and letting innocent young people pay for them with their lives.
Tonight he will again insult our intelligence by claiming success in Iraq and then take credit for bringing home the additional troops he put there this year who were scheduled to leave in any case.
When Vietnam was failing, a shrewd old Republican Senator from Vermont, George Aiken, said, “There's only one way out of there, that's to declare victory and just leave."
For the Iraq disaster, Bush’s answer is to declare victory and stay.
Now President Bush, faced with his own need for a Plan B in Iraq, is unwilling to abort his misbegotten war.
The crux of the analogy is that the man who self-righteously wants individuals to take responsibility for their mistakes keeps denying his own and letting innocent young people pay for them with their lives.
Tonight he will again insult our intelligence by claiming success in Iraq and then take credit for bringing home the additional troops he put there this year who were scheduled to leave in any case.
When Vietnam was failing, a shrewd old Republican Senator from Vermont, George Aiken, said, “There's only one way out of there, that's to declare victory and just leave."
For the Iraq disaster, Bush’s answer is to declare victory and stay.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Bush's Blood-Soaked Shell Game
After six months of hiding behind Petraeus, the Decider will emerge tomorrow to tell a grateful nation that he accepts the General’s plan to start drawing down troops from Iraq.
Americans who haven’t been following the shell game closely may believe the President is finally responding to their desire to start getting out. But of course he will only be v-e-r-y slowly removing the 30,000 troops he added this year and ensuring that the war will go on until he leaves office in January 2009.
If Congress fails to act, another 1500 young people will die, ten times that many may be maimed and another $100 billion that might have been spent on education, housing, health care and infrastructure will be shipped to Baghdad to keep a collapsing country together until a new President inherits the wreckage. Bush’s Pottery Barn rule is you break it, you sweep the pieces under the rug.
Congressional Democrats will huff and puff but, more likely than not, endangered Republican “centrists” will decide they have enough political cover to survive next November and do nothing to end the war but cluck sympathetically for the voters.
Compared to this bunch, the old carnival sharpies gave the rubes more of an even break.
Americans who haven’t been following the shell game closely may believe the President is finally responding to their desire to start getting out. But of course he will only be v-e-r-y slowly removing the 30,000 troops he added this year and ensuring that the war will go on until he leaves office in January 2009.
If Congress fails to act, another 1500 young people will die, ten times that many may be maimed and another $100 billion that might have been spent on education, housing, health care and infrastructure will be shipped to Baghdad to keep a collapsing country together until a new President inherits the wreckage. Bush’s Pottery Barn rule is you break it, you sweep the pieces under the rug.
Congressional Democrats will huff and puff but, more likely than not, endangered Republican “centrists” will decide they have enough political cover to survive next November and do nothing to end the war but cluck sympathetically for the voters.
Compared to this bunch, the old carnival sharpies gave the rubes more of an even break.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Petraeus' Technocratitis
In 2004, as a division commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus was asking a philosophical question to which he clearly had no answer, “Tell me how this ends.”
At his first press conference after taking command this year, he was still focused on the broad picture, saying, “There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq...There needs to be a political aspect.”
In his appearance before Congress today, Gen. Petraeus seems to have put all doubts aside as he gives what amounts to an unqualified testimonial to the “progress” of the Surge and joins the chorus of chaos-sayers if we significantly withdraw our troops in the near future.
Given his intelligence and sincerity, the most obvious diagnosis is that the General has contracted a severe case of technocratitis--so involved in the security mission he is overseeing that he no longer has the perspective of three years ago, of Iraq as an endlessly frustrating enterprise.
It is Congress’ job to see the war in the perspective Petraeus had back then and has clearly lost to the tunnel vision of his assignment now.
Tell us how this ends, General, and when.
At his first press conference after taking command this year, he was still focused on the broad picture, saying, “There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq...There needs to be a political aspect.”
In his appearance before Congress today, Gen. Petraeus seems to have put all doubts aside as he gives what amounts to an unqualified testimonial to the “progress” of the Surge and joins the chorus of chaos-sayers if we significantly withdraw our troops in the near future.
Given his intelligence and sincerity, the most obvious diagnosis is that the General has contracted a severe case of technocratitis--so involved in the security mission he is overseeing that he no longer has the perspective of three years ago, of Iraq as an endlessly frustrating enterprise.
It is Congress’ job to see the war in the perspective Petraeus had back then and has clearly lost to the tunnel vision of his assignment now.
Tell us how this ends, General, and when.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Our Fortune Tellers: Petraeus & bin Laden
Does the word “impotent” ring a bell? While George Bush boasts about “kicking ass” in Iraq during his Australian stay, Americans and their Congress are in a state of suspense awaiting word from one of our own generals and a man who lives in a cave.
Today’s New York Times reflects the waiting-for-Petraeus bind with an anonymously sourced story that relies on “White House officials” and “a senior military officer” to tells us “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, Is Wary of Cuts” while columnist Paul Krugman predicts:
“Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.”
If the Washington spin is not enough to make us feel queasy, there are anonymous sources in the Middle East to promote a 9/11 anniversary TV special that promises a "soon, God willing, video message by the Lion Sheik Osama bin laden, may God protect him."
In the promo, the Lion Sheik appears to have had a makeover, complete with beard dye job, by an Al Qaeda stylist.
When he appears in Washington, Gen. Petraeus will no doubt be his usual trim self and his message more reassuring than bin Laden’s, but the bottom line will be essentially the same: Our safety and peace of mind depend largely on ragged zealots in a part of the world where the richest, most powerful nation in history does not control events.
When Bush gets back from bragging Down Under, maybe he can explain how that happened, but don’t hold your already bated breath.
Today’s New York Times reflects the waiting-for-Petraeus bind with an anonymously sourced story that relies on “White House officials” and “a senior military officer” to tells us “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, Is Wary of Cuts” while columnist Paul Krugman predicts:
“Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.”
If the Washington spin is not enough to make us feel queasy, there are anonymous sources in the Middle East to promote a 9/11 anniversary TV special that promises a "soon, God willing, video message by the Lion Sheik Osama bin laden, may God protect him."
In the promo, the Lion Sheik appears to have had a makeover, complete with beard dye job, by an Al Qaeda stylist.
When he appears in Washington, Gen. Petraeus will no doubt be his usual trim self and his message more reassuring than bin Laden’s, but the bottom line will be essentially the same: Our safety and peace of mind depend largely on ragged zealots in a part of the world where the richest, most powerful nation in history does not control events.
When Bush gets back from bragging Down Under, maybe he can explain how that happened, but don’t hold your already bated breath.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Petraeus and Crocker: No Slam Dunk
After phony patriotism failed, the last refuge of the Bush Administration in Iraq has been competence, replacing robot generals and servile ambassadors with two men of substance, David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker.
For months, Bush has kept Congress from taking action to start stopping the war by hiding behind Petraeus’ September progress report. Now, worried about what the General and Crocker will say, the Administration is trying to have them testify in private while Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates do the public cheer-leading.
No dice, the Democrats answer. "Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq,“ House Democratic Chairman Rahm Emanuel declared, not “a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes."
Administration’s worries are reflected in what the straight-talking Petraeus told reporters yesterday: "We know that the surge has to come to an end. I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now.”
Five years ago, Crocker was one of the authors of a State Department memo on the pitfalls of an attack. Based on long experience in Iraq, Crocker warned that an invasion could "unleash long-repressed sectarian and ethnic tensions" and that “the Sunni minority would not easily relinquish power, and that powerful neighbors such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would try to move in to influence events."
If you’re still trying to sell that war, you don’t want Petraeus and Crocker to do the pitching. You need a toady like George Tenet out there to predict a slam dunk.
For months, Bush has kept Congress from taking action to start stopping the war by hiding behind Petraeus’ September progress report. Now, worried about what the General and Crocker will say, the Administration is trying to have them testify in private while Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates do the public cheer-leading.
No dice, the Democrats answer. "Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq,“ House Democratic Chairman Rahm Emanuel declared, not “a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes."
Administration’s worries are reflected in what the straight-talking Petraeus told reporters yesterday: "We know that the surge has to come to an end. I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now.”
Five years ago, Crocker was one of the authors of a State Department memo on the pitfalls of an attack. Based on long experience in Iraq, Crocker warned that an invasion could "unleash long-repressed sectarian and ethnic tensions" and that “the Sunni minority would not easily relinquish power, and that powerful neighbors such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would try to move in to influence events."
If you’re still trying to sell that war, you don’t want Petraeus and Crocker to do the pitching. You need a toady like George Tenet out there to predict a slam dunk.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Second Dumbest Guy on the Planet
Most of the Cheney crew is gone--Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, famously described by Gen. Tommy Franks as “the dumbest guy on the planet.” But Feith’s replacement as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Eric S. Edelman, is still there to carry on the tradition.
Yesterday he did his mentors proud with a snippy response to Hillary Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had asked about Pentagon planning to bring troops home from Iraq.
In response, Edelman wrote, "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," adding that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Sen. Clinton, who was not thrilled to receive a political lecture in answer to a policy question, plans to take it up with Edelman’s boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The incident may help explain why in 2005 President Bush had to bypass the Senate and use a constitutional power to put Edelman in the job. Rumsfeld had called his predecessor Feith, who masterminded the policy of ignoring the Geneva Conventions that led to Abu Ghraib, "one of the most brilliant individuals in government."
Edelman is right in that mold.
Yesterday he did his mentors proud with a snippy response to Hillary Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had asked about Pentagon planning to bring troops home from Iraq.
In response, Edelman wrote, "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," adding that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Sen. Clinton, who was not thrilled to receive a political lecture in answer to a policy question, plans to take it up with Edelman’s boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The incident may help explain why in 2005 President Bush had to bypass the Senate and use a constitutional power to put Edelman in the job. Rumsfeld had called his predecessor Feith, who masterminded the policy of ignoring the Geneva Conventions that led to Abu Ghraib, "one of the most brilliant individuals in government."
Edelman is right in that mold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)