Is Gates off-message?

Yesterday, we talked about how Defense Secretary Bob Gates’ message to Iraqi officials — “the clock is ticking” — doesn’t quite match up wit the Bush administration’s actual policy. Today, the Washington Post reports that Gates continues to hint to the Maliki government that the U.S. presence in Iraq will have a deadline.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, unsatisfied with the pace of political reconciliation in Iraq, laid down an implicit deadline Friday by urging Iraqi leaders to pass key laws by summer while repeating his warning that U.S. troops will not patrol Iraqi streets indefinitely.

Gates also described as “mixed” the results of two-month-old military operations to curb violence in Baghdad, which have included tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops.

“Our commitment to Iraq is long-term, but it is not a commitment to have our young men and women patrolling Iraq’s streets open-endedly,” Gates said at a news conference.

Gates pledged that the United States would continue training and modernizing Iraqi security forces to enable Iraq to defend itself from attack from abroad. But he made clear that in the future, U.S. troops could pull back from the day-to-day mission of providing security and combating militants. He stopped short of referring to a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. (emphasis added)

Yes, but the fact that he went up to the line without crossing it is interesting, isn’t it?

Maybe I’m reading too much into this. For that matter, it’s equally possible that Gates is just blowing smoke and his warnings about deadlines are as hollow as the rest of the administration’s empty rhetoric.

But I can’t help but notice we haven’t heard quite this kind of talk from a top administration official since the war began.

The LAT, under a headline that read, “U.S. stay limited, Gates warns Iraqis,” notes the same thing.

In the latest warning from Washington that America’s patience is wearing thin, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Iraqi government officials Friday that they need to pass legislation aimed at easing sectarian tension before this summer, when the U.S. military will conduct a formal evaluation of its troop increase in Iraq.

Gates stopped short of announcing a deadline, but he used some of his most forthright language to date to make clear to the Iraqi government that American soldiers would not remain on Baghdad streets indefinitely.

He ultimately urged Iraq’s parliament to pass legislation on provincial elections, the exploitation of the country’s vast oil resources, the status of former members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein and other issues before the lawmakers recess this summer.

And what might be the consequences if they don’t? He didn’t say. Hmm.

Is Gates off-message?

Considering the White House’s fanatical message control, no way. More likely, they have fashioned a different message for foreign consumption that isn’t intended for a U.S. audience. And considering that I watched CNN and MSNBC for 30-40 hours this week without seeing any mention of Gates, it looks like they have succeeded yet again in making our press corps look like a worthless joke.

  • doesn’t quite match up wit the Bush administration’s actual policy

    We have no idea what the administration’s actual policy is. I suspect the administration has little or no idea as well. It is true that what Gates is saying doesn’t match up well with what Bush is saying, but assuming that the lying sack of shit Bush is articulating (if I may use that word in connection with Bush) actual policy is entirely unwarranted.

  • Please, please. As long as the oil is there, then we will have a steady stream of “important people” going “right up to the edge”. No leader – not Republican, or Democratic, or Kucinich even – will withdraw the troops without plans for the oil. Think otherwise at you peril.

  • Does anyone know what our troops are doing over there except driving around looking for trouble or attracting trouble to come to them? We aren’t rounding up militias, we aren’t blockading “enemy” leaders in their compounds. Just what is it that we’re doing that’s supposed to end anything or bring about any significant change from the status quo? If anything the Bush message is we will keep doing whatever it is we do to keep this simmering along for as long as possible. Gates must be a liberal.

  • We have no idea what the administration’s actual policy is.

    (Through other Republicans) Win the next presidential election; stay in Iraq as long as possible.

  • We will stand down when it is clear that the people of Iraq will indefinitely stand up to us.

  • Does anyone know what our troops are doing over there except driving around looking for trouble or attracting trouble to come to them? — petorado, @4

    They’re at the ready to move to guard the oil fields as soon as the Iraq Parliament passes that bill.

    Up till now, the Sunnis have been resisting it, because all the oil fields are in the Shiite areas and, being in minority, they can’t count on”equitable division” of the spOILs. But, within the past few days, there was a report that the Sunni areas “might have” enormous but as yet unfound, much less developed, reserves. Very convenient…

    OTOH, the same report also suggested that developing those fields wouldn’t be as expensive as all that, which undercuts the rationale behind “let’s allow the foreigners, with their superiour technology and cash reserves develop them, and let’s allow them to keep 40% of profit for 5 yrs (*unprecedented* terms and a great loss to the country)”

    The development of the oil “situation” in Iraq will bear watching even more closely in the next few months.

  • Win the next presidential election; stay in Iraq as long as possible.

    I should have written, stay in Iraq indefinitely so long as it’s not getting better and the American people will allow it, even if it takes 20 years.

    After all, if it takes 20 years for the American people to overwhellmingly realize that things have not gotten better there despite those 20 years of occupation, and all the architects of the invasion are basically retired by then, it doesn’t hurt those architects careers to have their failure recognized, does it?

  • Comments are closed.