Posted by The Crux |
Let's bounce back and forth in time. In 2003, the Bush Administration promised a short war in Iraq (USA Today). This year, officials announced that the Iraq endeavor would likely become a long-term occupation -- like Korea, which has lasted 54 years (Washington Post).
In June 2006, Administration officials "envisioned" withdrawing half of our troops from Iraq by December 2007. In June 2007, they envisioned withdrawal "by late 2008 or early 2009" (BN-Politics-1).
In January 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress that President Bush's troop surge would be "a matter of months, not 18 months or two years" (WaPo).
Six months later, September was hyped as the time for our leaders to decide what to do -- all hinging on General David Petraeus' report to Congress, which is actually being written by Bush Administration staff (LA Times and BN-Politics-2).
September has come, and....
Saturday's Washington Post said that Gen. Petraeus' report 1) expresses disappointment in Iraq's lack of political progress, and 2) asks for another six months before leaders decide what to do in Iraq. Senate Democratics anticipate that Petraeus' report will merely echo the President's stance (ABC News). Actually, doubt began shadowing Petraeus's credibility shortly after hype surrounded his much-anticipated report.
In July, for example, Paul Krugman reminded us that in September 2004 Petraeus wrote an op-ed suggesting that victory in Iraq was just around the corner. Here we are, three years later....
In August, Petraeus feebly explained how 190,000 U.S. weapons were lost in Iraq while he was in charge of arming Iraqis. Weeks later, Lt. Col. Levonda Selph -- Petraeus' aide while the weapons were disappearing -- came under investigation for unspecified reasons (NY Times and BN-Politics-3 ).
Even former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) seemed to doubt Petraues' credibility, compelling Warner to go to Iraq in August to see things with his own eyes (WaPo).
In all fairness, Petraeus' dwindling credibility isn't really his fault. He works for a pro-war Commander in Chief, as did Colin Powell in 2003, when Powell strongly (and wrongly) implied to the world that Iraq was linked to 9/11 (BN-Politics-3).
The question still on most people's minds: Should we keep troops in Iraq? People with actual knowledge and experience don't agree on the answer.
Some have argued that it is our responsibility to remain in Iraq until that nation is stabilized -- however misled into the war we Americans may have been. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft (who publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq) said on Face The Nation that the U.S. already turned Iraq into a boiling "cauldron" and that removing U.S. military presence will make matters worse for the entire Middle East.
An op-ed by Bill Richardson, former congressman an ambassador to the U.N, argues the opposite: U.S. presence in Iraq is only fueling the instability. Richardson is a presidential candidate, but like Scowcroft he has extensive foreign-policy experience. In part, Richardson wrote:
"The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq....
"As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse -- including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war" (Washington Post).
Scowcroft and Richardson aren't the only ones disagreeing. Today's Washington Post reported that top officials within the Bush Administration have also locked horns as the nation awaits Petraeus' report to Congress: among them, Adm. William Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command and Gen. Petraeus (though WaPo doesn't clarify how they disagree).
Given my lack of expertise, I don't know whose arguments are right, but it is interesting that people with relevant experience disagree about what our nation's next step should be. Adding spice to this food for thought is commentary from around the media and blogosphere.
Rook's Rants wondered in what way Fallon disagrees with Petraeus:
"If Adm. William J. Fallon is talking about allowing the Iraqis to accept more risks, I am in agreement. If nothing else, it will require the Iraqis to take more responsibility to work out solutions. But with the presence of the military, I suspect they are more apt to wait for them to fix the problems."
Today's NY Times editorial questioned Petraeus' ability to give a non-politically motivated report to Congress:
"We hope that General Petraeus can resist the political pressure and provide an unvarnished assessment of the military situation in Iraq. He is an important source of information, of course, but he is only one source .... If Mr. Bush insists on listening only to those who agree with him, Congress and the public must weigh General Petraeus’s report against all data, including two new independent evaluations sharply at odds with the Pentagon’s claim that things in Iraq are substantially better."
Wandering Donkey: focused on differences between Fallon's and Petraeus' perspectives:
"Petraeus’ job is to ‘win’ in Iraq, period. Admiral Fallon, General Peter Pace and Pace’s soon to be replacement Admiral Mike Mullen have a somewhat different perspective and responsibility: the entire world.
"The fact that there is friction between Petraeus and his higher ups is almost a non-story. He was set up to have that friction. He has a job that requires an absurd percentage of our military if it is to be accomplished in the way the Bush administration wants. His superiors, doubtless, have other worries and problems in addition to Iraq. They are not going to be any more keen than most Americans for an extended engagement with current troop levels."
Ed at Captain's Quarters commented:
"While the surge has created dissent and perhaps in-fighting -- a term that seems an exaggeration from the [Washington] Post's reporting -- it has created more unanimity now than it had at the start. Even a skeptic such as Gates has decided that the surge has worked.... Whether we have the political will to press it further is the big question facing the nation when Petraeus testifies."
Wake Up America noted that disagreements among Administration officials are ordinary:
"Military men are not 'yes' men to the President despite the lies that Pelosi and Reid keep publicly stating. They have a responsibility to their men in the field and their honor and valor as well as their military credibility stands out front and center."
Thanks for the link. In answer to the title, short and sweet, dates will always change because conditions on the ground change.
That simple in my mind.
I wonder at the false indignation shown by some (not referring to you)when according to the H.R.2206 bill, Bush writing the report is what was mandated BY Congress and signed by Bush.
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
(C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
That false indignation seems to stem from the fact that people simply want to discredit any progress being made.
Why wasn't this issue discussed when the H.R.2206 bill was first approved and signed, but only NOW people are claiming they were misled?
Again, I haven't seen that here, but all over the blogosphere I am seeing this false indignation and it is curious.
Posted by: spree | September 09, 2007 at 04:45 PM
It seems that the Iraq 'timeline' is always made up of Friedman Units. There's always another period of 6-9 months that must go by before a real change in policy might be needed for sure. Another 'FU" before it's time to say the policy has failed.
Maybe the Congress will now finally force the President to listen to the people, who have been fed up with the current 'plan' for at least 18 months— and want to see our troops begin to give way to Iraqis. It's clear that few of the people in occupied Iraq want the 'protection' the President is forcing upon them.
The British are already beginning to redeploy in southern Iraq. Perhaps it's time the US begins to listen to independent reports like General Jones' study and follow suit.
Posted by: Bill | September 09, 2007 at 05:15 PM