Progress Being Made in Iraq (NY Times)

Parent Cafe
301

<p>"Based on speculation, and nothing more.</p>

<p>I’ll take real stats, thanks."</p>

<p>But you fail to acknowledge that your presumption that things won’t get worse is based on speculation as well. At least the speculation of the impending disaster is buttressed by independent people on the ground in Iraq versus the views of Democrats in Washington and on blogs.</p>

<p>If you are a fan of “real stats” are you then going to acknowledge that the horrendous death toll in Vietnam after we refused to provide the support for the South as allowed for in the Paris accords was a tremendous stain on the Left’s self-perception of being humanitarians? There are “real stats” (and real pictures) that show how bad things can get for people when the US abandons them. They were far worse than during the years of US involvement. No lesson was learned from that experience because the left has blocked it from their mind that they were significantly responsible for that bloodshed - just as I’m sure they will create a rationale of “inevitability” should things really go to hell in a hand basket in Iraq if the Dems get their way.</p>

302

<p>

Yep, there’s 2/3 of the pre-prepared narrative for when Iraq does go into the toilet: stabbed in the back by the Democrats, stabbed in the back by the media. Only thing missing was blaming the feckless Iraqis for not taking advantage of the golden opportunity we gave them. </p>

<p>The actions of the American military in Iraq are now virtually irrelevant except as providing targets to the AQ, the Baathists, the Mahdi Army, and–if we attack Iran–the Badr Corps (doesn’t leave a lot of political spectrum left, outside of the Kurds). The primary zone of accomplishment or lack thereof is and has been for quite some time the Iraqi political arena. It’s one thing to bluster about staying the course, it’s another thing to define “victory” in terms of who winds up running Iraq and under what circumstances. </p>

<p>There are no good options left. It’s a case of looking for the least bad. It’s laughable, in a dark and cosmic kind of way, that the Bush cheerleaders can approve of the horrendous mess we’ve made and then point the fingers at the Democrats for the results when we extricate ourselves. </p>

<p>Bush could have really united the country after 9/11. Instead, in Rovian calculation aided and abetted by the Cheney/Feith/Rumsfeld/et alia cabal, the Republicans used 9/11 for partisan advantage. The “Mission Accomplished” banner was supposed to be the niftiest prop for the 2004 re-election campaign, Republicans were going to get full credit for the “success.” Well, the electorate, except for the Bush-enabling Republican Guard and dead-enders, is giving Bush and the Republicans full credit for Iraq all right.</p>

303

<p>“This seems like Alice in Wonderland logic where the existence of violence is the rationale for pulling out those responsible for keeping the peace.”</p>

<p>Huh? I have NEVER heard Bush or anyone else describe our suicide death squads as “peacekeepers”. We gave up the idea of “training up” Iraqi forces nine months ago. The purpose of the so-called “surge” (read: increase in presence of hostile, aggressive occupying forces), as described by the President, was to buy time for a political settlement, with 18 benchmarks attached, the top of the list being the permanent signing over of a substantial part of Iraq’s oil production capacity to U.S. corporations. </p>

<p>The Iraqis (rightfully) don’t seem particularly fond of this idea.</p>

304

<p>The news is that the White House will be doing the war status report, not General Petreus, hmmmmm wonder why</p>

<p>y Jonathan Weisman and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 16, 2007; A01</p>

<p>Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration’s progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.</p>

<p>White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. “The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.</p>

<p>The skirmishing is an indication of the rising anxiety on all sides in the remaining few weeks before the presentation of what is widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush’s war strategy, and one that will come amid rising calls for a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq.</p>

<p>With the report due by Sept. 15, officials at the White House, in Congress and in Baghdad said that no decisions have been made on where, when or how Petraeus and Crocker will appear before Congress. Lawmakers from both parties are growing worried that the report – far from clarifying the United States’ future in Iraq – will only harden the political battle lines around the war.</p>

<p>White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281_pf.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

305

<p>"I have NEVER heard Bush or anyone else describe our suicide death squads as “peacekeepers”. "</p>

<p>Well, then that may go a long way in understanding your “confusion” on the war. Or, perhaps your view of “peacekeepers” is more akin to blue-helmetted troops that stand by and watch as two sides kill each other.</p>

306

<p>Well, if Bush and company doesn’t describe the mission as peacekeeping, why should I believe you?</p>

<p>Do you get different Presidential speeches on your TV than I do?</p>

307

<p>

</p>

<p>This is absolutely incredible. And the media has completely let the Administration off on this, generally. Bush will say that he listens to the commanders. But when the commanders tell him something he doesn’t want to hear, he discounts them completely (such as when the Joint Chiefs were against the current phase) or out-and-out replaces them. And in some cases, as in this one, takes back the reins of presenting information from them. For weeks, he had been saying that we should hear what the General has to say. Now we are hearing that the White House is preparing the report. Stalling tactics. As former Aide to Bush Senior Jim Pinkerton said, Bush’s plan is to not be president when inevitable withdrawal happens. It will be easy to blame other people then, a al:</p>

<p>

</p>

308

<p>Of course. Bush’s plan is to dump this mess in Iraq on the next president and walk down the path to Crawford, never looking back. He and his cronies made out quite nicely from the war machine. Clean up isn’t in his job description.</p>

309

<p>Petraeus is a hack. He described, in writing, how many U.S. troops he needed to do the job (250,000), and then accepted a job which he knew, in advance, was slated for failure because the White House wouldn’t provide him with what he said - in writing - he needed. He figured it would burnish his reputation to go along as a “yes” man. </p>

<p>Michael Ware reported from the Diyala Province front yesterday, where he described the U.S. continuing aggresssion. He said that nowhere, anywhere, were ANY Iraqi forces to be found. They have entirely vanished. Can’t say I blame 'em.</p>

<p>“Of course. Bush’s plan is to dump this mess in Iraq on the next president…”</p>

<p>Actually, that’s the Democrats’ plan as well.</p>

310

<p>"Well, if Bush and company doesn’t describe the mission as peacekeeping, why should I believe you?</p>

<p>Do you get different Presidential speeches on your TV than I do?"</p>

<p>Like I said, perhaps if you would actually listen to what is said, you would have a better view on what is happening. </p>

<p>

<a href=“Briefing Room | The White House”>Briefing Room | The White House;

311

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, here’s something that was said by a Bush Administration figure that I listened to, and it makes as much sense as ever:</p>

<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1724548370876617758&q=cheney+on+iraq&total=3401&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1724548370876617758&q=cheney+on+iraq&total=3401&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

312

<p>Thank you, ff. It is clear from what you quoted that suicide death squads are not “peacekeepers”, nor intended to be such.</p>

<p>But judge it for what it IS, not for what it is not:</p>

<p>“sending reinforcements to help the Iraqis protect their people, improve their security forces, and advance the difficult process of reconciliation at both the national and local levels”</p>

<p>Batting zero for three.</p>

313

<p>

</p>

<p>Military experts said back in January that surge will only fuel more resentment against the US occupation, and make the world less safe rather than more. The NIE report says that the occupation has increased global terrorism and made it easier for Al Queda to recruit, train, and get funding.</p>

<p>The Army’s counter-insurgency manual says that to deal effectively with insurgents, you have to empower the local folk to be responsible for the situation–not step up so they can have a break.</p>

<hr>

<p>This is no different from the argument before the invasion. Common sense and experience said it would take more troops to secure Iraq than topple Saddam. Neocons said that their hunch that it would take fewer was more compelling.</p>

<p>Once again, you’re asking us to defy common sense and experience to go with wishful thinking. I don’t think it will turn out any better than the last time.</p>

314

<p>“I don’t think it will turn out any better than the last time”</p>

<p>Yes or no…</p>

<p>Do you want it to turn out better?</p>

<p>No long explanations about neocons and odious behavior…blah…blah…blah.</p>

<p>In your heart do you want it to turn out better?</p>

<p>I know the answer and you know the answer, but I’d like to hear it from you.</p>

315

<p>Bush counseling us to listen to Petraeus’ assessment on how the war is going to make any judgements about the “new course” in Iraq. Let’s respect what the general says and his judgement, said the President:</p>

<p><a href=“http://usatoday.feedroom.com/?fr_sto...120&rf=sitemap[/url]”>http://usatoday.feedroom.com/?fr_sto...120&rf=sitemap&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>What a difference 5 weeks make. Now the White House doesn’t want an open report by Petraeus. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Petraeus has been saying he would recommend drawing down troops. Or is it simply that he was showing an uncomfortable level of independent thinking, even for a reputed “yes man”?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=most_emailed[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=most_emailed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

316

<p>^^^^^</p>

<p>Story: link broken.</p>

<p>

</p>

317

<p>Even though I’m sure there’s a reason that you’re posting this, it’s unfortunately old news and something that was discredited many hours ago…what a surprise…the Washington Post is discredited!!!</p>

<p>Petraeus is going to give an open report. The legislation that President Bush agreed to even requires it.</p>

<p>Relax.</p>

318

<p>

</p>

<p>All I have to say is…how dare you</p>

<p>You have hidden behind your ghostnic to do some pretty cowardly and lousy things to people here, me included, but this is over the top. </p>

<p>Let me ask you a similiar question:</p>

<p>In your heart, do you really want a stable, peaceful Iraq? Do you really want fewer troops and civilians to die there? Or are you hoping for chaos that will engulf the Middle East and so justify establishing a police state here at home with a neocon president-for-life and liberty and justice for none? </p>

<p>I know your answer and you know your answer, but I want to hear it from your own lips.</p>

<hr>

319

<p>

</p>

<p>What a misrepresentation. The President changed his position under heavy pressure, and when the law was pointed out.</p>

<p>However, General Petraeus still won’t be allowed to author “The Petraeus Report” not even in a co-author role. The White House is standing firm that only they can write his report for him. His role in the “Petraeus Report” will be limited to “input.”</p>

<p>And I am still waiting for an apology for the hateful personal attack on me. Though I guess the world would stop spinning on its axes if someone in your crowd actually took responsibility for something instead of just saying he takes responsibility for it.</p>

320

<p>

</p>

<p>And pull your head out of your posterior regions. The report wasn’t discredited; the Administration realized there was no way it was going to get away with it and so changed course. Rather than be discredited, the Washington Post actually became part of the story for reporting on something of import and in this case proved its relevance.</p>

<p>And, yes, after hearing that Petraeus would give his own view as if his truth is that of God’s, the White House realized it would be too risky to have him report straight, so they are “helping” him with the report.</p>