Goalpost on the move in Iraq: ‘Reconciliation’ is out; ‘accommodation’ is in

For all its dissembling, the White House has actually been fairly clear about the purpose of Bush’s “surge” policy — more U.S. troops would offer Iraqi political leaders some “breathing room” to achieve reconciliation. From there, sectarian conflicts would ease, and some semblance of stability would emerge.

It all sounds very nice, except the policy hasn’t worked, and about 11 months after the administration started implementing the surge, Iraq has actually slid backwards on political reconciliation. Indeed, the administration laid out a series of fairly specific benchmarks, to measure the success of its policy, and the vast majority of the goals are nowhere near complete.

The Bush gang has apparently decided to respond to the failed goals by — you guessed it — changing the goals.

With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections. […]

The White House has been elated by the drop in violence since the increase in American forces, now 162,000 troops. Public comments by President Bush and his aides, though, have been muted, reflecting frustration at the lack of political progress, a continuation of a pattern in which intense American efforts to promote broader reconciliation have proved largely fruitless.

There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”

Yesterday, Ambassador Ryan Crocker said, “This is going to be a long, hard slog” — which, coincidentally, are the exact same words Don Rumsfeld used to describe the crisis in Iraq more than four years ago.

And all of this comes, of course, just a month after Iraqi leaders conceded that reconciliation just isn’t going to happen.

But don’t worry, the administration has a plan.

The Bush gang has decided to play small-ball.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

Got that? The administration will push Iraq to take some modest steps, which they were going to take anyway. When these events occur, White House officials will say, “See? Look at all the political progress!” and hope people are too dumb to know the difference.

Two months ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said we would see “a major breakthrough” within “weeks” on political reconciliation in Iraq, which he believes is unfolding at “breakneck speed.”

Now that goal is so unattainable, we’re not even trying to reach it anymore.

The fundamental conflict goes back to the earliest days of Islam and a theological argument over how the Prophet’s role would descend after his death. It isn’t going to be solved during “the surge” or even (I hate to say) during Dear Leader’s lifetime. It is a FACT which, like other facts, simply escapes Bubble Boy’s notice and his handlers and sycophants’ concerns.

One thing nobody (on Google news search anyway) seems to have noticed is that as of yesterday Bush’s Iraq Quagmire is now one year longer than World War II.

  • Got that? The administration will push Iraq to take some modest steps, which they were going to take anyway.

    Coming soon, the Bush administration declares the surge has achieved its goal of making the Sun rise in the morning.

  • …the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues…

    Ah, the throw-away phrase buried in the Bush-list. But this is the pivotal reason the administration won’t pull out now. After all, Greenspan let the cat out of the bag, “It was for oil,” so the administration’s primary unstated objective for the illegal invasion still hasn’t been met.

    This wasn’t the purpose for the surge at all:

    …the White House has actually been fairly clear about the purpose of Bush’s “surge” policy — more U.S. troops would offer Iraqi political leaders some “breathing room” to achieve reconciliation. From there, sectarian conflicts would ease, and some semblance of stability would emerge.

    The surge was a time-buyer. Every delay is a time-buyer, and we’ll see them until kingdom come if the Iraqis refuse to give up control of their virgin oil field development. The administration and the next president will stay in Iraq, first, to get those oil PSAs approved by the Iraqis, and then, with the permanent military bases and the “biggest embassy in the world” completed, they’ll watchdog those billions being stolen from the Iraqis. They can put any gloss they want on a refusal to leave, but at its base, the oil is why the US military forces will stay in Iraq for decades to protect its “investment”, unless the US gets its comeuppance somehow.

    I am deeply ashamed of America these days.

  • Holy fuck! The surge ain’t working? No shit.

    Who knew that 20k US troops and zero diplomacy couldn’t reconcile some 1000 years of animosity between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds?

    That is besides a bunch of ideological dipshits.

    Sorry Frank (and Sammy Cahn), When I was seventeen as sung by W.
    When it was two thousand and three
    It was a very good year
    It was a very good year for small brained tools
    And big PR gags
    Of Mission Accomplished flags
    Hanging on the Abe at sea
    When it was two thousand and three

    When it was two thousand and five
    It was a very bad year
    It was a very bad year for US troops
    Who died over there
    While we strutted and laughed over here
    And it came undone
    When it was two thousand and five

    When it was two thousand seven
    It was a crappy year
    It was a crappy year for blue-blooded twits
    Of minimal means
    To surge troops and Marines
    And beg for a Freidman
    When it was two thousand seven

    But now the days grow short
    I’m in the autumn of the year
    And now I think of my life as dried cow crap
    >from sick old cows
    >from the brim to the dregs
    And it’s smell will sicken and sear
    It’s been some shitty years

    It’s been some shitty years

  • We may never know exactly, but Cheney’s secret energy meeting early on was quite likely a plot to make the world safe for Big Oil, and probably decided on the need for an Iraqi invasion then and there. Securing Iraqi oil is the insurance policy to provide us with a dependable future supply that also just happens to enrich all of Bush’s and Cheney’s chronies. That is the governance model: To keep the rich loyal you have to keep the loyal rich. The Iraqis aren’t cooperating, and I expect we’ll be in Iraq in force until they do, and essentially in perpetuity until the oil runs out.

    Slowly the black truth is oozing out, and when Americans finally understand their lifestyle is dependent on that black ooze I predict they may change their mind about the invasion. After all, it’s our oil, isn’t it? Even if it’s expensive?

    You can’t march to the mall and be a patriotic consumer without your SUV running on cheap gas.

  • Next up: ‘Accommodation’ is out, ‘Running for the helicopters’ is in.

    But as others have pointed out this is all about the crude so the Bush Admin has to be careful not to declare total victory because when that happens they’ll be fresh out of excuses for keeping the troops there. BushCo can’t pull the soldiers out unless Crocker has those oil deals in his pocket. That would be a failure from BushCo’s perspective. The Iraqi leadership knows this and will sit on those oil deals because they know once BushBrat declares Mission Accomplished 2.0, they’ll be on their own.

    Meanwhile, the Kurds have started inking deals to develop their oil fields with other nations and there isn’t a fuck of a lot we can do about it unless Dubya wants to tip Turkey the wink and slip off to Crawford until the smoke clears.

    The Bush gang has decided to play small-ball.

    Haven’t you heard: You go to war with the balls you have. Not the balls you wish you had.

  • Maybe I’m slow on the uptake but I’ve just grown an appreciation for the profiteers’ management of this war.

    When the war goes well and a goal is complete, move the goal posts so the war is no longer finished. (Mission creep)

    When the war goes badly, ratchet the goals back so that the end of the war seems reasonable to a sufficiently gullible public.

    In the military-industrial complex’s mind, it is only weariness of endless war, good or bad, that remains as a threat to their disastrous outcome of shutting off the cash cow that is the Iraqi (and someday, Iranian or Pakistani?) occupation.

    The expectations are now low enough that the plug may be pulled at any moment by “declaring victory and going home” in time to hopefully engineer a majority for the profiteers’ candidates so they might have another 6-7 year war somewhere else under another puppet president.

    If Diebold voting machines can be audited, I doubt all the vote caging in the world can produce a pro-war congress and president. Perhaps an end to the Iraq war with a “successful” outcome will stem their losses and allow them to regain control in 2010 when Code Pink has retired, the public has forgotten the carnage, and the TV writers strike has ended.

  • I caught some of John McCain on ABC this morning (good thing I was wide awake, because his delivery nearly made my eyes slam shut), and part of Schieffer’s panel on CBS, and in both cases, there an effort made to emhzsize the progress on reconciliation at the local level, as well as the fact that some of the refugees have started to return to Iraq – this, of course, was used to prove that the surge was working, because where else will reconciliation start but at the local level, and why come back if things aren’t going well?

    Anthony Zinni, on CBS, was the only one I heard who said that whatever effect the increased presence of American troops has had, we couldn’t ignore the effect of sectarian cleansing – get rid of the people you don’t like and there’s less fighting – and he also said that while there was some movement back into the country, most of those returning were not coming back to their former neighborhoods.

    (Richardson, meant to be the foil to McCain on ABC, managed to say that we cannot measure success in Iraq by the casualty counts, but he couldn’t really explain himself well, as usual, so it ended up being the battle of Boring and More Boring).

    We know we cannot sustain these troop levels. We know we will have to start drawing down. It’s clear to me that this is all being re-framed so that what is a drawdown-of-necessity can become a drawdown-of-choice-because-we’re-winning, and it will be accompanied by a huge PR effort meant to take Iraq away from the Democrats as an election issue; the proof of that is that it’s already starting – new talking points must have been issued and distributed to all the players, so that they could get the ball rolling on the talk shows.

    One wonders why the administration’s strategic and policy decisions do not engender nearly the same levels of focus and energy and brainstorming as do their public relations campaigns.

  • As several others have noted, it doesn’t seem to matter what happens in Iraq, whether things go well or badly. For some reason, the war must go on, in full force, until . . . what?

    What possible reason could there be for staying in Iraq for ever and ever?

    Yes, it’s the oil factor. Nothing else makes sense. Every other excuse for this sorry affair has been exposed as a lie or naive drivel. There’s nothing left but the oil, and we haven’t yet secured it for the American petroleum industry, so the war slogs on, relentlessly, until we do.

    And even then, it won’t end. We’ll need a substantial military force to protect the interests of Exxon et al, indefinitely, until we’ve plundered and exhausted the Iraqi oil fields.

    Why are the American people, the press, media, pundits, Democrats and Republicans so resistant to this truth? We need to admit it to ourselves, and deal with it.

  • To call this a mea culpa is totally wrong. To even call it a “sort of” mea culpa is inaccurate.

    Halperin’s “revelations” are more in line with the passive “non-responsible” accountablity phrase – “mistakes were made”

    Just some more BS on top of all the other BS.

  • Oops, the above comment was meant for another post concerning, obviosly, Mark Halperin.

    An ironic mea culpa – I’ll spin it to blame weak coffee and South American vetriol toward The Us.

  • FWIW, just a reminder about the WH response to Greenspan’s charge that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil:

    Bush vs. Greenspan: White House Fires Back

    September 16, 2007 2:12 PM

    ABC News’ John Cochran Reports: Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s memoirs, ‘The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World’ doesn’t go on sale officially until Monday, but already the White House has fired back at two charges he levels.

    Greenspan writes that “the Iraq war is largely about oil.” That did not go down very well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where spokesman Tony Fratto told ABC News he would try to restrain himself. But he still took a pretty good shot at Greenspan: “That sounds like Georgetown cocktail party analysis. The reasons we went to Iraq are well understood and had to do with wmd (weapons of mass destruction), enforcing UN sanctions.

    But we know that the Bush administration lied about WMDs in Iraq to get America to approve its illegal invasion, and we also know that the US had no authority to enforce the sanctions made by the UN. The only truth to Tony Fratto’s statement is faithfully repeating what the Bush administration told America and the world at the time. He was spinning the same old lines that we all now know were outright lies.

    To the extent that oil has anything to do with our engagement in Iraq today, it is the danger that al Qaeda could obtain control of oil assets and use them to threaten our interests.”

    ANOTHER reason we’re in Iraq? Saddam Hussein’s Iraq didn’t have an al Qaeda presence, so this is certainly specious and a spur-of-the-moment reality-construction, made up years after the illegal invasion.

    On ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that although he has “a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan,” he disagrees with him. Gates said “I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991 and I just don’t believe it’s true.”

    I certainly never heard the Bush I administration OR its critics claim that the reason the US came to the aid of Kuwait against Hussein’s attack was to rob Kuwait of its oil. But US military involvement certainly WAS related to oil in the mid-East. They didn’t want Saddam Hussein to get his hands on Kuwait’s.

    Anyway, the administration gave no answers at all to Greenspan’s charge that the invasion of Iraq was about oil.

  • We know we cannot sustain these troop levels. We know we will have to start drawing down. It’s clear to me that this is all being re-framed so that what is a drawdown-of-necessity can become a drawdown-of-choice-because-we’re-winning, and it will be accompanied by a huge PR effort meant to take Iraq away from the Democrats as an election issue; the proof of that is that it’s already starting – new talking points must have been issued and distributed to all the players, so that they could get the ball rolling on the talk shows.

    Well said. The irony of course is if this works and a [shudder, gag] Repubican gets in the White House and/or there is a Republican majority in Congress, they can’t blame the Democrats for all of the other shit that is already falling from the sky and will continue to fall well after Bush moseys on back to the ranch.

    Pulling a few thousand troops out won’t fix the economy and could well result in more casualties for the ones left, it won’t stop the sub-prime disaster, won’t create jobs, won’t lower gas prices (well, we could argue about how far BushBrat’s buddies would go to make him look good), it sure as hell won’t capture Osama bin Laden. And what’s the news out of Afghanistan right now? Not. So. Good. But because the reality-phobic GOP is operating under the premise that people are just a little annoyed about the war, they’ve decided to gamble everything on “Success” in Iraq.

    However, the timing of Mission Accomplished – 4 Realz is now problematic. Declare a win too soon and once people get over the initial high, they’ll realize their lives still suck and the longer it takes for the withdrawals to begin, the more pissed off they’ll feel. Declare it on Nov 5, 2008? I suppose that might work assuming things don’t get that much worse in Iraq and people don’t just laugh at a blatant attempt to fix the election.

    Then there is the BushBrat problem. I think he’s bent on hosing as many people as possible because it must be their fault and not his everything is going so poorly. Will he be willing to do anything to help his fellow Rethugs?

    Ha ha ha!

    And of course there’s still the oil. Will the big oil companies be forgiving if their Republican pals don’t deliver Iraq’s oil fields on a platter? Sure. And Don Corleone will overlook that debt.

  • […] why come back if things aren’t going well? — Anne, @9

    Because you have run through all your savings and the country that has given you shelter doesn’t want you anymore? If Iraqi women — those same women who are expected to stay home most of the time and, when outside, be covered from head to foot — are turning to prostitution in Syria and Lebanon rather than go back to Iraq… It doesn’t suggest to me that they’re coming back because things are so rosy at home; it suggests that they come back because they have no other choice.

    And, of course, as has been mentioned, they do not really “come back”, not to their old neighbourhoods; they relocate. The term is “internally displaced”, but they’re still refugees. And we all know what a wonderful lot is that of refugees anywhere…

    The maladmin’s new talking points maybe *new* piffle but they’re still piffle.

  • 30 trillion in oil revenues and it cost 1trillion and a few lives to get it still leaves 29 trillion profit which will lasts for decades to come. Cheney knew this. He doesn’t give a shit about Iraqis or even fellow Americans. It’s the same reason he wants to attack Iran…oil.

    Needless to say we could have bought the oil but Sadam was wanting to sell oil for euros rather than dollars and Cheney just couldn’t let that happen. It might reduce us to the status of a third world country (which, because of the decreasing dollar, is about to happen anyway). If we don’t get the oil it would all have been for nothing except the profits the contractors have made from this war/occupation.

    Bush will not leave Iraq unless he is forced to leave. He will hold the troops hostage as blackmail to get the funding he needs. He will even go so far as to attack Iran to keep us in the ME if he has to. It has always been about the oil and terrorism has just been used to keep us in fear and looking the other way while they stole the resources of another country.

    I can’t understand why so many are just willing to ignore all the lies this administration has told and are violently opposed to hearing the truth. The only way to not know is to not want to know. Only 2 ways out of Iraq: 1) impeachment; 2) stop the funding. The democratic congress is unwilling to do either.

  • Hark (#10),

    For some reason, the war must go on, in full force, until . . . what?

    Until nothing. The goal is the war itself. The Bush Crime Family makes a good deal of money out of arms manufacture, as does the rest of the Carlyle Group. As do many of our legislators, Republican and Democrat. That’s why none them will honor their pledge to hold War Profiteering hearings, a la Senator Harry Truman … during WWII.

    Why should they want to pull the udders off their cash cow?

  • #18

    Uh, using Charles Krauthammer to claim a state of denial isn’t all that bright. Especially since he was one of those that INSISTED that everything in the 2003 Invasion was going to go swimmingly. And that this four year insurgency was only the last throes. So far, he’s been pretty wrong about pretty much everything.

    BTW, things went really quiet post Tet in 1968. The NVA and VC used the lull in fighting to rebuild lost forces till 1972 and 1975.

    Mao wrote very simply and effectively:
    “The enemy advances; we retreat. The enemy camps; we harass. The enemy tires; we attack. The enemy retreats; we pursue.”

    Currently US forces advance. Once the surge is over, the bloodshed will probably spike. It ain’t football, putz.

  • Comments are closed.