Our Hundred Years' War

When the fighting started, did the English have any idea how long it would go on? Did they expect to go through France in a cakewalk?

It’s Year 5 in Iraq, and the forecasts are lengthening. On Meet the Press this morning, retired Marine General James Jones, head of a commission studying the readiness of Iraqis to take over their own security, predicted “it’s probably a three to four year project for them.”

Today’s Washington Post, describing Bush Administration in-fighting over the war, reports one plan that calls for “slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010” and Gen. Petraeus “making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress.”

A New York Times blog reports that a poll “which contained an oversample of members of the United States military and their families, found that Americans say the Iraqi government is not doing all it can realistically be expected to do to establish order. Sixty-two percent of those polled said the United States made a mistake getting involved in Iraq.”

This week, the Washington air will be filled talk of “progress” in Iraq, and the questioning of what we are doing there will be branded defeatist by those who are planning to replicate the whole enterprise in Iran before American voters throw them out of power.

At how many points in the Hundred Years’ War did the English and French talk about progress, patience and persistence? And they were fighting for their national existence, not in a far-off hellhole for the misbegotten theories of armchair strategists named Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Libby.

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.