First Reaction to Petraeus-Crocker
Monday, September 10, 2007 at 6:58 am
- 2 Comments
Writing during the first break in the hearing.
I’m trying to listen with an open mind to Petraeus and Crocker. It’s hard, probably impossible, when the main substance of their presentations have been known in advance, and have been debunked in advance by critics who have become more and more sure-footed by years of experience and more and more convincing by years of turning out to be right.
For example, if I understand correctly, after the token withdrawal of one of the 20 combat brigades in December, Gen. Petraeus suggests (no guarantees) that by next summer, the total U.S. force might be down to 15 brigades, which I understand to be the level of U.S. forces before the surge began. The possibility of further reductions is mentioned without even target dates.
One problem: We have been told repeatedly that the full surge cannot be sustained beyond next spring without “breaking” the U.S. military. Is Petraeus simply claiming that the withdrawal that will forced by events will be made possible by future successes that he can’t guarantee?
more insideSurmise: It’s really too late for anyone speaking for this administration to claim to see a light at the end of the tunnel. It’s possible that these two are right, and the light is there.
But to me, the only evidence of serious forward progress would be sustained declines across several months in the total amount of violence in Iraq, the total deaths, both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, and sustained improvement in the Iraqi economy, and it would have to be measured by neutral, non-administration officials using the most straightforward, transparent and verifiable methods.
Short of that, my gut feeling is that the long-awaited Petraeus-Crocker moment leaves us where we were, with President Bush planning to sustain high troop levels in the combat zones and vowing to veto anything that deviates from that. Democrats, lacking any hope of overriding a veto, lacking the willingness to cut off funds, hope it will be the issue that puts them in control of the executive and legislative branches in 2009.
And if that happens, and if the United States withdraws or substantially reduces its presence sometime in 2009, we will begin to learn the answer to the most unknowable of questions, which is whether that will turn out to be one more disaster, for the Iraqis and perhaps for the United States, to follow the ones we have seen so far.
2 Comments
Comment posted September 10, 2007 @ 9:11 am
Just more lies…. The purpose of the escalation in Iraq was supposedly to allow “political reconcilation” time to occur (or even start). By the good general’s own admission (and the considered evaluation by dozens of actual objective experts and analysts), this “element” of the Bushco “surge” is a complete and utter failure. There is no serious movement toward sectarian reconcilation going on in Iraq, unless we count the latest rumors of a coup against al-Maliki (or his “removal”) as “progress”. The quagmire is unchanged.
So instead we’re treated to asinine nonsense about “sectarian death” statistics and supposed declines in some defined type of attack, al`a “body counts” in Vietnam. Petraeus’ numbers are manufactured garbage, as a dozen analysts and even some journalists(!) have reported. That we are sitting here patiently listening to such crap 30 years after Vietnam and its “statistics” is simply stunning. Whether Petraeus is involved in self deception or willful manipulation of his data is an interesting question, but of no real consequence right now.
The fact that the “surge’s” political failure is clearly meaningless to all involved, from the WH to the HQ of our latest court favorite Petraeus, demonstrates that the real purpose of the surge was simply delay and more delay. It was a desperate, cynical, anti-democratic gambit to keep our occupation of Iraq going full speed through the Cheney admin’s term of office and keep Cheney’s dream of an American oil protectorate in Iraq alive.
Viewed as such, it was a grand success. Petraeus has “recommended” that the surge be gradually halted (since it can’t be militarily sustained anyway as Eric notes) and that we be “down” to 130,000 troops by Summer 2008, where we were when the Repubs lost Congress. Mission accomplished, Gen Pet!
Bush and Cheney (and their compliant general) have thus thwarted the results of a national election, and shown that our system of government no longer functions. They (and their Repub enablers in Congress) have flouted a national election. Repubs, the “conservative” movement and their corporate press have learned that they have the power to do this.
As a result, BushAmerica cannot be meaningfully described as a “democracy” anymore, and it is clear that our constitution has failed. What the voters want to do in matters of war and foreign occupation no longer matters. Hope it was all worth it.
Comment posted September 10, 2007 @ 4:11 am
Just more lies…. The purpose of the escalation in Iraq was supposedly to allow “political reconcilation” time to occur (or even start). By the good general's own admission (and the considered evaluation by dozens of actual objective experts and analysts), this “element” of the Bushco “surge” is a complete and utter failure. There is no serious movement toward sectarian reconcilation going on in Iraq, unless we count the latest rumors of a coup against al-Maliki (or his “removal”) as “progress”. The quagmire is unchanged.
So instead we're treated to asinine nonsense about “sectarian death” statistics and supposed declines in some defined type of attack, al`a “body counts” in Vietnam. Petraeus' numbers are manufactured garbage, as a dozen analysts and even some journalists(!) have reported. That we are sitting here patiently listening to such crap 30 years after Vietnam and its “statistics” is simply stunning. Whether Petraeus is involved in self deception or willful manipulation of his data is an interesting question, but of no real consequence right now.
The fact that the “surge's” political failure is clearly meaningless to all involved, from the WH to the HQ of our latest court favorite Petraeus, demonstrates that the real purpose of the surge was simply delay and more delay. It was a desperate, cynical, anti-democratic gambit to keep our occupation of Iraq going full speed through the Cheney admin's term of office and keep Cheney's dream of an American oil protectorate in Iraq alive.
Viewed as such, it was a grand success. Petraeus has “recommended” that the surge be gradually halted (since it can't be militarily sustained anyway as Eric notes) and that we be “down” to 130,000 troops by Summer 2008, where we were when the Repubs lost Congress. Mission accomplished, Gen Pet!
Bush and Cheney (and their compliant general) have thus thwarted the results of a national election, and shown that our system of government no longer functions. They (and their Repub enablers in Congress) have flouted a national election. Repubs, the “conservative” movement and their corporate press have learned that they have the power to do this.
As a result, BushAmerica cannot be meaningfully described as a “democracy” anymore, and it is clear that our constitution has failed. What the voters want to do in matters of war and foreign occupation no longer matters. Hope it was all worth it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
