Petraeus starts lowering expectations for September

May 17, 2007

A few weeks ago, Gen David Petraeus told reporters about an important upcoming milestone in the administration’s war policy. “During Secretary Gates’ recent visit to Iraq,” Petraeus said, “we agreed that in early September, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead. We will be forthright in that assessment, as I believe I have been with you today.”

Ever since, September has been circled on the political world’s calendar. Petraeus would report on the efficacy of Bush’s so-called surge, lawmakers would see the results, and, assuming the indicators are discouraging, opposition to the president’s policy would become too much for the White House to bear.

But all of this more or less falls apart if, in September, Petraeus doesn’t deliver much of an assessment.

[L]awmakers seeking political cover from Petraeus’ expected September report may now have to look elsewhere for help. The blog IraqSlogger is reporting that Petraeus tells them he won’t have had enough time by September to say “anything definitive.”

“Come September, I don’t think we’ll have anything definitive in September [although] certainly we’ll have some indicators on the political side in Iraq,” he told reporter Jane Arraf, who is embedded with U.S. troops and working for IraqSlogger, an Iraq war blog.

Petraeus’ spokesman in Iraq, Col. Steven Boylan, told The Politico in an e-mail that the comments posted in the blog were an accurate reflection of what Petraeus said and is consistent with what he’s said previously about reporting on conditions in the fall.

In other words, it’s hardly a stretch of the imagination to guess what’s going to happen in four months — Petraeus will deliver an ambiguous report on political conditions in Iraq, soft-pedal violence and destruction, and insist that policymakers give the policy more time.

And what will congressional Republicans do then?

It’s a little late for the GOP to turn around and downplay September’s signifance.

Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline.

In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq’s warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.

“Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September,” said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). “I won’t be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me.”

Trent Lott said he’ll need to see “significant changes” by September. John Boehner wants a change if the policy isn’t working “by the time we get to September, October.” Norm Coleman said, “There is a sense that by September, you’ve got to see real action on the part of Iraqis. I think everybody knows that, I really do.”

If they’re going to stick to this commitment, great. If they’re looking for Petraeus to give them cover, they may be out of luck.

May 17, 2007 at 4:12 pm

And what will congressional Republicans do then? they’ll say the good gemeral needs more time and you hate America. It’s all they’ve got.

Petraeus said, “we agreed that in early September, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead. ”

What? So he forgot to mention this assessment would happen in “early September of 2008”. Leave the poor guy alone.

why does this not surprise me at all? they’ve been using these delaying tactics for years now. and it looks like with a few more gimmicks, they’ll be able to delay things until……….bush leaves office……..i’m so sick of this!

Petraeus will deliver an ambiguous report on political conditions in Iraq, soft-pedal violence and destruction, and insist that policymakers give the policy more time.

And what will congressional Republicans do then?

Say “ask us again in another Friedman.”

Todays installment of SASQ.

“And what will congressional Republicans do then?”

The same fucking thing they do every day: let Bush continue to get away with murder, while accusing Democrats of playing politics.

Or *this* time are we supposed to hope that they’re *really* going to oppose Bush and do something?

I wish everyone would read this Michael Hirsh article from February:

In For the Long Haul

The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come. Does anybody running for president realize that?

Feb. 22, 2007 – The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying — and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team” — and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” …

How stupid that Congress would even accept this condition of a Sept assessment as even a criteria in Iraq war funding? Here, let me say it for him:
“We’re seeing some progress but we still have a ways to go as we are just now getting the rest of our troops in place. But deaths are down and the Parliament and Iraq government are gearing up for more sessions after returning from vacation. The Green zone has been re-fortified and over the next several months Iraq security forces will be in place. Unfortunately there are still casualties but these are within acceptable limits etc.”
That is of course if we are not heavily involved in a war with Iran by Sept. which is, I believe, the ‘real’ plan. Only 3-400 more deaths till Sept. besides wounded. Please pretend the deaths are more important than the political wait. We already know now what we will know then so be brave enough to stand up for your convictions and end this occupation now before it gets 10X worse than it is now…They’ve been wrong about everything so why are you waiting for them to prove it to you again? How much worse does it have to get…oh 300 dead in one day, well maybe we should begin to redeploy…no, no not yet, I mean we’ve seen the worst now, it’s got to get better now. Stop getting our soldiers killed by hesitating. Stop the funding, bring them home now. You are not even talking about how much worse it can get while waiting to see if the ‘splurge’ works. You just ignore that point thinking it will remain the same at least, while waiting for Sept.

The surge won’t work.

We don’t understand the place, its culture, religion or history.

Check this post out on pre-islam religion:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/39008.html

There is just no way we are going to be able to put humpty dumpty back together again using M-16’s.

I think by September there will be more American soldiers being held captive, because al Qaeda knows the Republicans will need another reason to keep us there.

I sure hope I’m wrong, but their goal is to keep us there until we’re totally drained. I think it’s entirely possible that when we finally do leave, they will attack us in an attempt to drag us back in (maybe somewhere else).

Chinese handcuffs work great on people with no brains.

The soft bigotry of low expectations. There. Somebody had to say it.

Petraeus may not realize it but he will be affecting greater political change here in the US than in Iraq in September. By saying that there will be significant change to report by then, Petraeus is telling Republicans facing elections that the war is the albatross around their necks and they had better wear it with pride.

In terms of ending Bush’s Iraq war, September 2007 means nothing. What is looming over Congress is November 2008 and the general election–with the presidency, control of the House, and 21 Republican senate seats at risk (vs. only 12 for the Democrats). Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith will have to be Houdinis not to “buy the farm.”

I know Ed Stephan isn’t currently updating his graph on the Iraq war/occupation casualties, but as of May 1, the story is already clear :

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

As far as Im concerned, unless we have seen a clear break in the very consistent trendline that has been in place since day 1 (any divergence is typically toward a higher death/day ratio) then efffectively, we can say there has been no progress, and the game is over, as far as the political game in the US.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that clear evidence of failure will change anything, because of this ongoing idiotic “debate” about what would happen if we did leave Iraq. It’s really more political posturing, since no one really wants to sit down and discuss the probabilities of how difference scenarios might develop, based on our withdrawal, be it fast or gradual.

But look, you dont just pull 150k troops out overnight. If you just start pulling them back, and it looks like a fiasco (or, well, a BIGGER fiasco) is taking place, um, in that case, I see no reason the American people wouldnt allow a return, since we arent that callous. And part of the agreement to withdraw should be tied to that, to keep the Rethugs and Administration happy. But we ought to at least try to get out.

If we did start pulling out troops, Id think at first youd see a reduction in US deaths, although you could get a higher kill rate if you screw up the withdrawal, and the various enemies realize you aren’t capable of defending yourself. But that doesn’t have to happen unless you withdraw with a less than well thought out plan (and sadly, the chances of that are high, given the history of incompetence in this adventure.)

As far as Iraqi deaths, it’s not even clear whether they would accelerate, slow, or what, and we can’t really know what we would otherwise compare that to, in order to know if we’ve made the right decision. But based on the current history, it looks pretty clear what the results will be if we stay. It’s just a question of how long it will look exactly the same before it gets better or worse. So for each year of that, we lose 1000 US troops, so that we dont risk taking any other chance of a different outcome.

Whatever we do, the sectarian violence has to play itself out, its just a matter of at what pace, and at what cost in terms of US lives that get to watch it happen or not. But it will play out, whether we watch or not.

The only REAL issue, since the Iraqis have been doomed by our folly, is whether pulling out leads to any regional contagion. But I think that if you pull out of Iraq, but not out of the region, you can effectively contain that.

Honestly, I just cant see what it is we are accomplishing now, other than having our troops killed so that they can say they didnt lose. It’s incredibly sad.

The F.U. lives! Some predicted the demise of the Friedman Unit with the promised Sept report. Petraeus seems to be laying the groundwork for it’s renewal.

Here’s a hint for measuring the success of the surge: If it’s too difficult to tell whether it’s working or not, but our embassy staff are still required to wear flak jackets inside the green zone, it didn’t work.

I know what will happen barring a major event/change – They’ll just pretend they never said anything about September being important and the national media will let them.

The ending the war in Iraq is like the f in calculus – you are always approaching it, but never reaching it.

The only way to stop the war is to insist on a draft of all Americans between 18 – 24. All. When the rich kids start getting ready for a tour of duty, then and only then will the Republicans start screaming no.

JF – that’s funny. At first I thought you were talking about a grade for the class, rather than a limit.

Heck, draft *only* the rich kids — they can afford to buy their own equipment.

Petraeus won’t make an announcement to the American people in September. It won’t be American Idol. It’s not his job. He’ll deliver a report to Gates and/or Bush, and leave a note for the (next) War Czar.

I’m guessing Petraeus will tell it straight and have no comments to the media. He’ll leave it to the administration to give the message — or spin it — to the public. The only question is what the White House will come up with. We can be assured that failure will not be admitted. Eventually, Petraeus will write a book (as will everyone else freed from the Bush administration).

One more thing. Have you noticed how the list of potential Iraq scapegoats is growing?

Gates
Petraeus
War Czar(s)
the Iraqis
the Iranians
Nancy Pelosi

Rumsfeld and the previous crew don’t count because it can’t be admitted that the pooch was screwed from the beginning.

Our President is a con artist who stayed in town one term too long. The last days of Bush will be played out before an increasing aware electorate of those who see him as a crooked, incompetent, lying sack of crap hand puppet.
September trickery is no longer a surprise.. it is expected and has no credibility.

I can only think the September accounting regarding the surge was a scam from the get-go…

I have no doubt that the relevant metrics re: the efficacy of the surge are pouring into CentCom every night from the officers in the field…all they have to do is press the “print “button for the Excel spreadsheets and we could have an answer tomorrow.

If they’re already backpedaling from the September goalpost, it’s obvious that the news is so bad they’re not even going to try to spin it…

It should be obvious to everyone, everywhere by now that the US has no intention of leaving Iraq: not in September ’07, March ’08, January 21, ’09, or anytime in the foreseeable future. We’re there. All those inside Bush’s quadruple bubble know we are engaged in a long term occupation and bloody, destructive fight. It’s important, folks: it’s about oil.

The British stayed from the 1920s until 1958. I would date our departure around 2040, or whenever the oil runs out, whichever occurs last.

Republicans running in ’08 will spin their way out, probably wrapping themselves in the flag. Whatever happens after Bush is dragged out of the White House will be spun as the fault of the Democrats and America-hating liberals, whoever they are. Bush’s thugs have innoculated him against blame.

Now that the bill funding daily Iraqi operations has passed, Democrats in Congress should propose another bill covering the cost of redeploying our troops out of Iraq, at some unspecified time in the future.

Purpose?

A rainy day fund. Instantly available once the order is given. Placed in a lockbox. A “support the troops” bill.

Of course, Bush and Cheney will veto this bill, because they literally don’t have any “exit strategy” for our troops in Iraq, especially any “exit strategy” for redeploying ALL of our troops out of Iraq.

But all this Democratic bill would do is set aside funds to cover the expense of getting our troops out of harms way. It would not affect the day to day operational funding of the war in Iraq. This is solely an “end game” bill.

A bill which would severely undercut the Republican talking point that if enough Democrats and Republicans in Congress defund Bush’s Iraq War, they’ll be abandoning our troops in Iraq.

Nope. The cost of redeploying our troops out of Iraq has already been funded and is just waiting to be accessed and used for that purpose, Democrats can say.

This is why Bush and Cheney will veto such a bill. They won’t want any funds set aside specifically allocated for removing our troops from Iraq, because they have no intention of ever removing ALL our troops from Iraq.

If Democrats in Congress, though, do what I suggest, then finally the “big lie” will be put to Bush and Cheney’s claim (as well as all rubber-stamp Republicans) that they “support the troops,” especially if they come out against this bill.

Comments are closed.