As the Surge(tm) in Iraq continues, so does the surge at home. This week, with the backdrop of 9/11, the hard sell went into overdrive as the Chosen One General Petraeus took the stand. For six months now, the Democratic efforts to get us out of the quagmire and in fact any debate over Iraq at all were met by the phrase “Wait for the General’s report in September.”
Near mythical status has been given to this report, like Moses bringing the tablets down from the mountain. Only Nixon could go to China, only Petraeus could come from Iraq. Any and every logical point of dissent, debate, and concern was blunted, blocked, or broken by the supposition that the only human being on Earth qualified to have an opinion on Iraq is the Mighty General Petraeus.
And finally, the man in charge of Mohammed’s mountain came to Washington.
In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, senators pressed Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus for a measurable sign of success that would enable a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin.
Petraeus said he “would be very hard-pressed to recommend” continuing the so-called troop surge beyond March if conditions in Iraq had not changed from what they are now.
But he told lawmakers that Iraqi security forces are improving and are able to “shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly” amid continuing concerns about sectarian elements within their ranks.
“Overall, our tactical commanders see improvement in the security environment,” Petraeus said, repeating assertions about the decline of violence during the surge.
In the surge, President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq in January as part of a campaign to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces.
Second verse, same as the first. Everything’s going fine, we’re fine, everything’s fine here, give us a second to lock it down.
But something happened on the way to the Forum. Petraeus slipped. Freudian or not, he made the mistake of telling the truth.
t one point Tuesday, Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia — an outspoken critic of the state of affairs in Iraq — asked Petraeus if the strategy he was laying out before Congress was making America safer.
“Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq,” Petraeus answered.
“Does that make America safer?” Warner repeated.
“Sir, I don’t know, actually. I haven’t sat down and sorted it out in my own mind. What I have focused on and what I’m riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force-Iraq,” Petraeus replied.
When your opinion is believed to be infallible, you can’t say “I don’t know.” When the question is “Is America safer because we’re in Iraq” and the answer is “I don’t know” then you’re not only in trouble with Bush (who has sacked so many Generals who told him the truth) but from the reality-based community, who notices things like “somebody telling the truth” in this administration.
Telling the truth in this administration is not only newsworthy, but blogworthy as well, deeper drilling is needed. Exploratory efforts must be put forth!
Even more newsworthy (and blogworthy) is the fact the news ITSELF is telling the truth about this administration. Indeed, that’s worth discussing.
The reductions envisioned by the White House mirror those proposed by Petraeus and would leave approximately 130,000 U.S. troops on the ground by August 2008, roughly the same level that existed before Bush ordered the buildup early this year, the officials said. Now, there are 168,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
What’s this? This isn’t being passed off as “a major troop reduction” but…the status quo from January 2007? But the hard sell! And before the Preznit’s Big Ol’ Speech!
Speaking of that speech, people are noticing that with all the emphasis that the debate couldn’t possibly begin without sufficient Petraeus input, the debate is now over without anyone else’s input. The Decider has Deciderated the Strategery and the rest of us peons (and Congress) had their chance. The result: status quo ante.
That would leave the U.S. with about 130,000-135,000 troops in Iraq, although Petraeus was not precise about whether some of the several thousand support troops sent with extra combat forces would remain after July. A few thousand additional military police, for example, were sent to deal with extra detainees.
At the White House, Bush met Tuesday afternoon with House and Senate lawmakers of both parties, and he publicly pledged to consider their views. “It’s very important before I make up my mind that I consult with leaders of the House and the Senate,” he said.
Odd, because apparently he made up his mind pretty much much immediately after talking to them. Or even before, as CNN was reporting this as breaking news as the second Petraeus hearing was ending.
The four nanosecond window of debate is now closed. Thank you America for your input on the war. We will consider your input carefully, at which point we will totally fucking ignore you.
Please save any comment on America’s continuing war in Iraq until March 2008, at which point we will ignore you again.
The plan is now officially to run out the clock until January 2009. Petraeus, the media, the pundits, the Congress have all served their purpose: thwarting the will of the American people on Iraq.
For the Democrats, their reward will be the White House, and a concerted effort to pin the blame for the failed war in Iraq on the Democrats and the American people. Surely the American people won’t fall for this again, you say.
I say the American people are no longer relevant to the discussion of America. The pundits and the media and the GOP minority will attack the Democrats at every turn.
But the really horrendous issue is the fact Bush still has the go-for-broke option in Iran. If anything, the President is now more likely to take this route, as Iraq and Bush’s legacy has turned into a stalemate.
There’s some fleeting hope however: the military is sick of being used.
But it’s questionable whether even the smoothest-talking salesman could appease public opinion–or Petraeus’s Pentagon detractors–at this point. NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.
Then again, several reports out before the good General’s policy-shaping world-shattering testimony contradicted him as well, and were dismissed out of hand, because Only Petraeus Knows The Truth.
Which of course will be the same accusations leveled at critics in 2008. Wait another Friedman Unit. Six more months for the rest of eternity.
We will never leave Iraq. I’m of the mind that even a Democrat in the White House will do the same spine-folding routine we’ve all come to know and love. There won’t be 130,000 troops in Iraq by 2010, but there will be, maybe, 60,000 forever. And again, all bets are off if Bush hits Iran on the way out as his final fuck you to the universe.
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, “everyone in town” is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.
The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.
On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran’s known nuclear targets.
Remember, those critical discussions and debate about the pros and cons of bombing Iran will probably prove about as useful as the preceding discussions were about Iraq.
Plan: 1) Bomb Iran as soon as the primaries are decided.
2) Everything’s fucked.
3) Blame the Democrats.
4) Shoot for 2010/2012.
“The Trash Heap has spoken! Nyaaaaaaaah!”
— Fraggle Rock
And the Long War rolls on.
