Is ‘the clock’ really ticking?

Reader H.B. alerted me to some interesting comments Defense Secretary Robert Gates made in Baghdad yesterday, as part of a direct challenge to the Maliki government to step up and do more — quickly.

“Frankly, I would like to see faster progress,” Gates said, moments before boarding a military aircraft to travel to Iraq.

Continued debate on Capital Hill over potential troop redeployments help show the Iraqis that “this isn’t an open-ended commitment” on the part of the United States military, he said.

“Our president has said that our patience is not unlimited,” Gates said.

Gates added, “The clock is ticking.”

All of that sounds very nice, but it’s also entirely inconsistent with the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. If the White House’s rhetoric is to be believed, the clock can’t be ticking — because if it were, the “evildoers” would simply have wait for the clock to stop ticking.

It’s why our commitment to Iraq, the Bush gang says, has to remain open-ended. If there’s a point at which the “suiciders” and “dead-enders” think we’ll leave, they’ll “wait us out.” It’s why timelines are akin to surrender and benchmarks have to remain toothless.

Gates also told reporters, “The Iraqis have to know that this isn’t an open-ended commitment.” They do? All evidence suggests the exact opposite — that Iraqis have to know this is an open-ended commitment.

By definition, this is a conflict with no intended end. The administration says the war is over when Iraq can sustain, govern, and defend itself. As far as Bush, McCain, and Lieberman are concerned, we can’t leave until it does. By any reasonable definition of the phrase, that is, of course, an open-ended commitment.

Likewise, counter to what Gates said yesterday, our patience has to be “unlimited.” If not, we’ll abandon Iraq and terrorists will fill a power vacuum that will endanger the world. That is the administration’s worldview, isn’t it?

If this debate is going to have any intellectual seriousness to it, war supporters, including Gates, have to admit the obvious. In January, on Meet the Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), was at least honest about it.

Graham: We should try to win this war. And the day you say we’re going to withdraw — three months, six months, a year from now — the effect will be that the militants will be emboldened, the moderates will be frozen, and we will have sent the message to the wrong people. Who started this…

Russert: So we’re stuck there forever.

Graham: Well, you stay there with a purpose to win.

In other words, given this worldview, we very well may be stuck there forever.

All Dems have been saying for a year is let’s at least start the clock so that Iraqis know that it is ticking. And all Republicans have been saying for a year is that this isn’t even a remote possibility.

So, Secretary Gates, I’m afraid you went a long way to tell Iraqis and the world the exact opposite of your administration’s policy. Nice try, though.

The Republicans know the ticking noise they’re hearing isn’t a clock, it’s a bomb that is strapped to their asses and it’s set to go off in November of 2008.

Tim Russert should realize that he is a big reason why we will be stuck there “forever”.

Ptui.

  • I know there are still people out there who feel like they HAVE to support the President, to not support him is to embolden the terrorists and all that sappy crappy. But I do wonder, is there anyone out there who is still happy and proud that he or she voited for Bush. Is there anyone who looks at this cowardly simp in a nice suit and thinks “That is MY President” with that sense of awe we used to have for Presidents? Is there anyone out there who lies awake at night ashamed for casting a ballot for this heartless bastard?

    Because, you know, they should.

  • McClatchy has a story up today suggesting that US military planners have pretty much given up on the whole “stand up / stand down” training is Job #1 thing, and are moving toward trying to defeat the insurgency and establish security with US forces. You can’t fault them, really, given that the image on a nonsectarian force run by a stable, unified government has always been a pipe dream.

    But it certainly sounds a lot more like the infamous ‘land war in Asia’ than a ‘surge’ to buy the Iraq government time to finish getting its boots on.

    The biggest problem Bush has with “artificial timetables” is that they all suppose we intend to get out sometime.

  • What does it mean to say ‘the clock is ticking,’ without saying how many quarters you have left for the meter? Clocks are always ticking, aren’t they?

  • Gates added, “The clock is ticking.”

    Yep, the countdown until BushCo GTFO of the White House and pretends it had nothing to do with the mess in Iraq has begun. If the next Pres. is a Democrat it will also signal the start of the ReThuglican whine-a-thon about the waste of money and lives in Iraq.

  • If I take the McClatchy piece, and meld it with the ticking-clock scenario presented by mini-Rummy, I keep coming up with a model that promotes a metaphor of total, unrestricted warfare. Not the quick-strike spot bombings of Shock-n-Awe, but the catastrophic carpet-bombing campaigns of WW2, civilian internment camps, huge bases, and a massive influx of troops. You think 28,000 is a surge? Try adding a couple of “zeros” to the back end of that number.

    Can’t think of a better way to sucker Iran into a war than to park a massive, overwhelming infidel force right next door….

  • Has anyone else noticed the complete absence of administration boasts? During the Vietnam War and most wars, there was a steady diet of mostly false claims of success. Pacifying some area, a big victory in an operation, destruction of a major supply dump. There’s little of that in this war.

    As I recall, the major claims of success in Iraq are pulling down the statue of Saddam, new paper currency with Saddam’s image removed, and free elections (of US-picked candidates). And we’d kill al-queda’s No. 2 guy over and over again.

    Military commanders and presidential administrations always spout these things, even questionable successes with spin. This war is so bereft of success, they can’t even grasp for straws. There’s just a claim that things will get better.

  • Oh the clock is ticking … to the next presidential election and the end of Bush’s reign. The clock is also ticking for the next time we will need troops for an important action, but there won’t be the troops to do anything about it. The clock is ticking that every 60 sconds a new insurgent is born in Iraq who knows nothing but hatred toward the US and with every internet video another Muslim somewhere will be driven by all the horrors to devote his life to fighting against us. There are a lot of clocks ticking, unfortunately time is not on the side of the US.

  • My guess is that Gates is expressing his own position as someone with some expertise and experience. It just so happens that Mr. Gates is not the Deciderer. Mr. Gates, you seem a bit like General Powell. If you aren’t familiar with the role General Powell played and the extent of his power in W’s first term, I’d advise you start reading up.

  • If we have to fight them (whoever “them” is) over there so we don’t have to fight them here; and

    If it is true that when we leave, they’ll follow us home,

    then we have to stay in Iraq forever.

    This is the logical conclusion of the Graham doctrine.

  • So Lindsey Graham’s point is that as long as we intend to win it does not matter what we do.

    “Well, you stay there with a purpose to win.”

    I hereby propose that we immedately withdraw all our troop with a purpose to win. Declare Iraq the most wonderful place on earth and rename Baghdad International Airport George W. Bush Intercontental.

    Senator Graham as been pissing me off since the impeachment hearings. i hope he pisses me off in impeachment hearings again soon. Tool!

  • […] rename Baghdad International Airport George W. Bush Intercontental. — MNProgressive, @12

    Did you mean George W. Bush Incontinent?

  • Comments are closed.