Posted by The Crux |
Yesterday, General David Petraeus told Congress the following [ per NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, and AP]:
.
1) The surge is working, despite progress's glacial speed;
2) More definitive answers won't be available until March 2008;
3) 30,000 troops might be withdrawn by July 2008.
Withdrawing 30,000 troops would restore numbers to pre-surge levels. In other words, the surge might become a 19-month endeavor.
That's exactly what Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the surge would not be. In January, Gates told Congress the surge would be "a matter of months, not 18 months or two years" (WaPo, emphasis added).
The Bush Administration can't seem to help mis-underestimating stuff. In June 2006, for example...
the Administration "envisioned" withdrawing half of our troops from Iraq by December 2007. In June 2007, officials envisioned withdrawal "by late 2008 or early 2009" (BN-Politics).
In 2003, the Administration promised a short war in Iraq (USA Today). In 2007, officials said it would likely become a long-term occupation -- like Korea (Washington Post).
I felt sorry for Gen. Petraeus as I watched him yesterday. I mean, he does answer to the Commander in Chief. It's like a kid who wears ridiculous clothes because his mother makes him.
Still, I grasp why Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) expressed doubt during opening remarks:
"We can not take ANY of this Administration’s assertions on Iraq at face value anymore, and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility. This is not a knock on you, General Petraeus, or on you, Ambassador Crocker. But the fact remains, gentlemen, that the Administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two Committees and the Congress that victory is at hand.… I don’t buy it...." ( Crooks & Liars.)
Such sentiments were expected and may reflect a majority of Americans' thoughts, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll.
At least Lantos kept a civil, even sad-sounding, tone when expressing his doubts about the Bush Administration. (Video clip below)
The only thing that wasn't expected yesterday was the arrest of about a dozen protesters, most of them for shouting, one for butting ahead of the line to get into the hearing. Among them was Cindy Sheehan (I think she was a shouter). Then again, maybe it was expected.
Reactions in the media and blogosphere are interesting:
WaPo's Michael Abromowitz described Petraeus' and Crocker's report as not the pivotal point it was hyped to be, but instead "an exercise of kicking the can down the road."
Tony at The Hustle expressed dismay in a post titled "Are You Effin' Kidding Me?":
"We waited four months for the commander of our armed forces, General David Petraeus to speak to Congress, and for what? To get the party line: "Give us more time..."?
"The much-anticipated first day of testimony from Petraeus, a decorated, four-star, Princeton-educated warfighter, turned out to be so much gobbledegook. In essence, all we've heard is the same thing we've been hearing for the last year and a half."
Sen. John Kerry's response (via Democratic Daily ) was:
“It spoke volumes today when General Petraeus said the Iraqi politicians have been sitting on their thumbs while American soldiers sweated it out all summer. Nothing today suggested that President Bush’s eight months of escalation have done anything to achieve political progress in a deadly civil war.... The three recent independent reports – from the General Accounting Office, the National Intelligence Estimate and the General Jones Commission - all say the opposite.”
Froth Slosh B'Gosh questioned the notion of progress:
"The problem isn't with the message per say, but the methodology on how success is defined. Its quite easy to show 'progress' when you differentiate between people who are killed by a shot to the front of the head (ordinary crime) and the back of the head (sectarian violence). Shia on Shia? Doesn't count either. And so long as deaths in Baghdad are down, it doesn't matter if deaths are up significantly in other parts of the country. Oh, and don't forget to NOT count people who are killed in car bombings! And isn't it surreal when murder is classified as "ordinary?"
Dr. Taylor at PoliBlogger wondered what "victory" really means:
"The problem is that I am not sure what precisely the 'objectives' are at this point. I know that the administration is keen on 'victory' (but really, who is opposed to victory, really?), but I still am unsure as to what 'victory' is supposed to look like."
Related Posts:
Why do they Keep Changing the Dates?
"Billions over Baghdad": Poor Accounting Enabled Contractor Fraud
Comments