Playing for more time

In talking to Robert Draper for his book “Dead Certain,” the president conceded that his goal was not to end the war or to bring U.S. troops home, but rather, to bide his time. “I’m playing for October-November,” Bush said.

For nearly five years, every defense of the administration’s war policy has been just that, “playing” for more time. When conditions on the ground would deteriorate, we were told we just needed to be patient. When political progress went backwards, it was only because Iraqis needed more time.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will finally start sharing their perspectives today — though they won’t offer an actual report — and the plan, apparently, is to once again ask for more time.

The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

The irony is, the policy the White House unveiled earlier this year was supposed to eliminate these constant requests for “Friedman Units” (6-month increments). Bush announced the “surge” policy and agreed to a series of 18 benchmarks. If the policy worked, Iraqis would complete the benchmarks; if the policy failed, the benchmarks would remain unmet.

Here we are in September, and only three of the 18 benchmarks have been checked off the to-do list. And yet, lo and behold, we need another six months to evaluate a policy that already doesn’t work, and already can’t produce the expected results.

Last week, reports indicated that Petraeus would consider pulling a single brigade out of Iraq by January, if he felt conditions warranted it. Today, the NYT indicated the move could conceivably come a little sooner.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress will begin Monday, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan.

But that’s not particularly encouraging. Even if Petraeus were willing to withdraw a brigade by mid-December — and that’s conditional on the success of a policy that hasn’t worked to date — that still means no change to the existing policy for another four months. (Like last week, the reward, in other words, for failing the benchmark test, is two-thirds of a Friedman and a new spending bill from Congress.)

For that matter, Petraeus’ conditional withdrawal proposal is still remarkably thin. He’s describing, in effect, ending the “surge” in 11 months. But at that point, we’ll still have 130,000 Americans in the middle of Iraq’s civil war. Perhaps more importantly, we’ll have run out of troops for the surge several months earlier.

Petraeus is likely to share a fairly predictable message with lawmakers this week: there’s been measurable military progress in Iraq (based on data that can’t be verified and has already been contradicted), and he needs more time to produce more results.

If you feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day this morning, you’re not alone.

What’s bothering me is that Petraeus is not going to Congress for the sole purpose of delivering an assessment and answering questions that will help the Congress decide what the best course in Iraq should be, he is going there to tell them what he is and is not willing to do – as if it is his sole decision.

I suppose, in some ways, that it has become his/Bush’s sole decision, by virtue of the fact that the Democrats cannot muster up 67 votes to veto-proof any legislation mandating a timeline for withdrawal, and – even worse – there are Democrats like Joe Biden out there perpetuating the Republican talking points that not approving funding requests is harming the troops. Are they so far into this that they cannot appreciate that there is enough money to fund a safe and orderly withdrawal, which will ultimately be the best waty to protect the troops? Why do they not know this?

One of the more interesting bits of information that came out of the WaPo article in Sunday’s paper, is that Petraeus is at odds with the Admiral Fallon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Petraeus is prevailing – I guess the only link in the chain of command that really matters is the one at the top, but if I were Fallon, and the generals who report to me were ignoring me, I would be telling the president to find himself another chump.

I will listen to the hearings today; I do not expect to be impressed by the questioning, or by the answers, and I fully expect to be ready to run screaming into the streets once the post-report spinning begins.

  • Ever since their Iraq adventure began to fall apart, Bush and his cheerleaders have been playing for more time. (Did everyone see Keith Olbermann’s commentary on this? It will knock your socks off.)

    But – more time for what? Are they really so self-deluded that they think that things will be better in another six months, or another, or another? I know that these people are both stupid and arrogant, but does that explain what they are doing? They’re digging a hole for themselves and their “legacy,” and they are destroying their political party and the foundations of their “conservative” movement.

    Quoting Molly Ivins’ First Rule of Holes: “When you’re in one, stop digging.”

    When someone is spectacularly wrong, it’s sometimes possible at least to see what false assumption or illogical conclusion is leading them astray. But in this case? What the hell are these guys thinking?

  • Bush wants us in Iraq, OBL wants us in Iraq. Haliburton and our major oil companies want us in Iraq. Cheney wants us in Iraq. It sounds as though they are on the same page, yet the MSM is trying to tell us OBL is a lefty. I just want to know who’s making the most money out of this labyrinth enterprise. For whom is this war profitable? Why are we wasting our fine men and women in uniform when a military solution will never work? Where is our diplomacy backed by the weight of our convictions? Mr. Bush needs to answer these and other questions before we allow him to continue his horrible mistake. -Kevo

  • If Democrats had any respect for the voters who sent them there, they would wait until Betrayus is introduced, stand up all together and walk out. That would be a Democratic Party to be proud of.

    Or, if they do want to stay and lap up the Bush Crime Family’s propaganda and drivel, they could at least wrap their middle fingers in those “purple heart” bandages the GOP gave out at the last convention – designed to besmirch John Kerry’s real purple heart(s) – and wave those middle fingers in the face of Betrayus (rather than clapping like trained seals).

    I’m sorry. I was just thinking about our colonial era break from the monarchy of England. For a moment I thought we were revolutionaries, establishing a democratic form of government , “novus ordo seclorum” and all that crap. How silly of me. And aren’t those military uniforms beautiful? And all that corporate wealth represented in both houses of Congress! who could ask for anything more?

  • OkieFromMuskogee asks: more time for what? Are they really so self-deluded that they think that things will be better in another six months, or another, or another? I know that these people are both stupid and arrogant, but does that explain what they are doing?

    I think what the troops are doing there is providing bait for the Iranians, and since so far they’re not biting, the neocons are going to have to fabricate some Iranian atrocities for Americans to believe as they launch phase two of their operation.

    You watch.

    That oil doesn’t just magically flow into your gas tank, ya know. Somebody’s gotta get it for ya.

    Higgins: …Fact is, there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was all right, the plan would’ve worked.
    Turner: Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?
    Higgins: No. It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
    Turner: Ask them.
    Higgins: Not now — then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!

    BTW, there is another way:
    http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

  • Seems appropriate.

    Sung to “A Little More Time”

    Give me just a little more time
    And war is a victory
    Give me just a little more time
    And war is a victory

    Life’s too short to make a mistake
    Let’s think of profits and hesitate
    Dumb and ignorant we may be
    There’s no need to act sensibly
    If we leave my base (rich folk) won’t forget it
    Years from now we’ll surely regret it

    [Chorus]

    You’re weary and you’re in a hurry
    You’re eager to leave but don’t you worry
    We both want the sweetness in life
    But these things don’t come overnight
    Don’t give up cos war’s been slow
    Boy, we’re gonna succeed with another Surge

    Give me just a little more time
    And war is a victory
    People please People
    People please People

    War is that village we must bomb
    Let’s bomb it together your hand in mine
    We have known each other too long
    But the feeling I have is oh so strong
    I know we can make it there’s no doubt
    We owe it to ourselves to find it out

    Just,
    [Chorus]

    Give me just a little more time
    And war is a victory
    People please People
    People please People

    [Chorus]
    [Repeat And Fade]

  • It’s puzzling that the assessment would be delayed until shortly before the surge, as currently configured, has ended. I don’t see how supporters of the occupation could find any grounds for confidence in the avoidance of a well-drawn plan.

  • If you want to move the contest into overtime, you need a tie score—and three out of eighteen benchmarks, after four-and-a-half years of war, does not qualify as “a tie score.”

    Pet Rock and Crock Pot—serving up another steaming bowl of Stonewall Soup….

  • I believe that Cheney’s plan for Iraq has always been to establish permanent bases in the country so that the US assure the flow of oil from the region and from which an invasion of Iran could be staged, sometime before Bush left office. The administration’s failure to secure Iraq following the invasion has slowed the execution of this plan. Cheney is buying time in the hope that he may some how, at least, find a way to get his Iranian invasion.

    Bush, in my opinion, only wanted to get Saddam to revenge Saddam’s attempt on his father’s life. That it for his “thinking” on Iraq. Although he has achieved all that he wanted to in Iraq, he doesn’t want to go down in history for losing Iraq. Hence he wants to buy enough time to pass this disaster off to the next president who the Republican will set up for taking the fall on Iraq.

    Different motives. Same results. We’re stuck.

  • The NYTimes editorial says Bush is stalling until he leaves office. This could be the most significant factor in his thinking. Bush knows chaos is inevitable (making him a Chaos Hawk, as Kevin Drum describes it), but thinks that if he can postpone it until a Democrat can take the blame, then history will forget that the bloody consequences were contained in his initial decision.

  • Grumpy, #12:

    I just checked some Vietnam era figures. During 1960-68, essentially the Johnson years, there were 36,147 US military deaths. During 1969-75, essentially the Nixon years, there were 21,200.

    Even so, and even though Nixon used internationally illegal invasions of neighboring countries, hardly anyone refers to Vietnam as Nixon’s war. It is, and will always be, Johnson’s, and it will remain an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.

    Unless the Democrats show a truly remarkable ability to shoot themselves in the foot while putting their heads up their collective ass — I’m not saying they don’t know how to do that — the Iraq Quagmire will be forever hung around the Shrub’s neck. “Mission accomplished” will be recorded as [Bush Family] “Crime Committed”.

    I’d sure like to know, though, how many Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are hauling in a personal piece of action from companies which profit from this so-called war. Fat chance of finding that out.

  • Comments are closed.