Bring them home now!

Petraeus also seems unique amongst the current crop of military men in thinking the 'surge' is useful. It's why he's in charge - not some claim to having an understanding of anti-insurgency tactics.

That's what makes the whole Republican meme of 'we're following the strategy recommendation of the general on the ground' thing so unbelievable.

The fact remains that five battalions is the best we can do, Petraeus is probably the best general available for this job, and congressional threats really are providing incentives to Iraqi leaders to resolve their differences.

You want the Iraqi parliament to shorten their 2-month summer break to resolve their differences?
But they need that time to clear brush!

Seriously though, why should they resolve anything? Why would the Shiites go for a compromise? Every time that topic came up they stalled because they seem to be convinced that they´ll win the civil war.

The "commander on the ground" was carefully selected to agree with the policy of the Commander Guy and his string-pullers. He may or may not be best qualified to execute said policy, but if they claim the policy is a good one because "the commander on the ground" says so that's called circular logic.

And the dying goes on.

Petraeus is known as a smart guy and I hope he gives us a straight picture on successes and failures (ours and Iraq's) in September before announcing his retirement.

Its brigades not battalions. People inside the Pentagon are less impressed with Fred Kagan's "plan" than many realize. Kagan also recently wrote that the U.S. Army should be sized so as to invade and occupy Iran until they get over their desire to acquire a nuclear capability. In other words, forever. Brilliant. That Kagan is considered a strategist is a sad commentary on the quality of strategic discourse in America. As fellow officers who know Petraeus say, the man wants to be chairman of the JCS. He sees giving Iraq a final go as his ticket, pass or fail. Under his leadership the training of the Iraqi Army went nowhere.

So long as we keep to deadlines or benchmarks while avoiding timelines, victory is ours.

Every instance in which there has been significant progress in Iraq has been make-believe.

"We have a Democratic Congress making extremely credible threats to the Iraqi leadership that they need to make progress ASAP or else troops are likely to start coming home whether George Bush likes it or not."

Seriously....seriously, do you think the Dems have the guts to stop funding this thing and bring the troops home?

I'm sorry - there's just no way they're making "credible threats" to bring our troops home. Not until we get a Democratic president will this thing end.

Petraeus is also the guy who wrote a manual that explicitly says we'd need over 500,000 troops to conduct a successful counter insurgency in a country with Iraq's population.

I've written a post with direct quotes from the manual he co-authored here:

http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1157

The asymmetry of our situation in Iraq is fatal. We are fighting for some form of stability and organization. Our many opponents are fighting, not for a competing form of order, but for chaos. Maintaining chaos is easy. Sadly, the Iraqis will have achieved only chaos when we leave.

Methinks this September deadline is a suckers' bet as well.

Not just the script, but even the progress report to be out in September has already been written, and it shows that surge has led to tremondous progress.

Come September, the President will proclaim that the surge has worked, and the warmonger noise machine will be on full gear, declaring that our dear leader achieved this grand success despite the host of obstacles placed in his way by the treasonous democrats.

The Democrats have been fooled once again, and this time they did not have much power not to be fooled.

I know, I know: counting on moderate Republicans to come to their senses is a sucker's bet.

Not when their jobs are on the line. Counting on any politician -- of any political party -- to stick a moistened finger in the air in an effort to keep his job is always a safe bet.

Why do you think things aren't going pretty much as the Shi'a dominated gov't wants them to(and I don't mean al Maliki)? The Sunni are getting paid back for 40 years of oppression both by the ISF/Police (aka death squads) and the Coalition (aka the US).

The Kurds are getting to husband their strength and kicking out Sunnis while they wait for the December vote on Kirkuk; I can't imagine why the Maliki gov't isn't forcing the Kurds to stop that .

The area around Basra will see the Brits gone shortly and the Shi'a won't have to keep smuggling the oil to finance the militia, they'll be able to fund the military in the clear.

Then it's just clean up a few pockets of Sunnis (mainly the ones we put walls around) to get the message to the rest and track down and kill the Al Qaeda Sunni still stupid enough to stay in Iraq once we leave. Then, they and the Iranians can work on the Sauds.
Can't wait to see what we do then.

Byron York spent most of the 1990's sliming Bill and Hillary Clinton for The American Spectator, R. Emmett Tyrell's worthless right-wing rag. He has less credibility than a horse thief, in my opinion.

TJM has nailed the problem. The trouble with threatening to pull out if the Iraqi government doesn't get its act together is that the Shiite militias would love to see us out so they can go back to slaughtering the Sunnis and running them out of the country.

Tell me again exactly what motivation the Shiite extremists have for making peace with the Sunnis?

A September deadline is only being talked around to allow endangered Republicans time to lie about their positions in time for the 2008 elections without having to back up their rhetoric in any way.

I can't be the only one who noticed this: after the meeting in Cairo, all the Arab and Middle Eastern states looking to help finance and promote Iraq's recovery have layed down checkpoints of progress to validate that support.

They seem to think it's OK. It totally makes sense to validate progress against commitment. You'd do it in any joint project, start-up, research, etc.

Commonsense and practicality only flies out the window with Repugnuts when ideology gets in the way.

Oh, yeah. That's right. It always gets in the way.

September is the key

Yeah, the key to throwing stupid Repugs out-a-office.

SO, let Repugs wait until September, since they NEVER lean anything, and THEN those so-called moderate Republicans like Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins can go the way of Bushies's poll numbers.

AND since the Supreme Courts has said that re-districting is totally legal for Texas and Tom DeLay - It should be legal to re-district the areas where Snowe and Collins were elected since they are stong Dems states, and thus turn them into strongly held Dem offices, whereby Repugs need not ever apply.

And by the way, why can't Dems just get a straight up and down vote on Iraq war funding?

Pretending

Petraeus, what a great name: sounds like the commander of a Roman legion. By all accounts to seems to be a smart (perhaps brilliant)leader. However, unfortunately he is being used as a prop in our national game of 'learn how to pretend'.

We are now engaged on some serious pretending on 3 fronts:

1. The length of the war: It was clear to a lot of people (including me) that any serious campaign to transform Iraq would take at least 10 years. Anyone dealing on a shorter time frame was/is being Pollyanish.

2. Clinging to the notion that ANY politician in D.C. (with the notable exception of Mr. Dennis Kucinich) will sacrifice their own political career to end the war is a losing proposition. Our constitution bestows enormous power to the Commander in Chief to wage war, and the only way to stop him is to impeach him or pull the plug financially. Anything else is pretty much just talk.

3. That President Bush (or the GOP) will do the right thing: If GWB intended to the do the right thing he would have done it a long time ago. This is a person who revels in calling himself the Commander in Chief when he demonstrably doesn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

The GOP may do something in September, but it will only be a gesture. GWB still has 76% approval ratings among Republicans (Can you believe that?)and GOP pols are not going to shoot him down. The GOP will carry Iraq right into the 2008 elections and suffer huge losses.

Maybe after that we can all stop pretending.

Suppose we do "secure" Baghdad -- then what? Do U.S. forces subsequently garrison the city indefinitely? Or do they turn security over to the Shi'ite mili -- excuse me, the ""Iraqi Army"?

Further, Byron York makes the erroneous assumption that the "Iraqi government" is actually a functional body, when its parliament hasn't met with a proper quorum since its initial organization last year.

And just like the so-called Republic of Vietnam in the 1960s, that government holds no authority in the country that's outside the range of U.S. firepower -- and the odds currently heavily favor its meeting a similar fate.

Tell me again exactly what motivation the Shiite extremists have for making peace with the Sunnis?

Posted by: mickey on May 8, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Because otherwise it means the country being torn apart à la Lebanon, and living in the middle ages, while the Kurds look on and gain strength over them.

Because every Arab country to their west and south will support the Sunnis and the US will be watching every Iranian move.

Because the Turks will be watching the Kurds, and the Shias and Sunnis.

See how the USA features only passively above?

Because, if the US had any F*^&%ng policy, it would be clashing heads within Iraq, and settling negotiations without.

But NO! This is the admininstration that wanted an interventionist, international policy without care, thought, objectives, planning, organization, or means to an end -- any end, but they don't seem to have a one!!

Most incompetent, dangerous, corrupt US administration ever!

Incredible.

Murtha now says that there is a possibility of extending rotations to 18 months- so much for the hoped-for September awakening. As long as the political future of Iraq and it's constituent groups remains unsolved our participation is pointless. If there is no country to hold together what can we hope to gain by September?

petraeus is just an ass-kisser who wanted another star.

makes a big difference in his retirement bennies.

do the math.

Going from brigade or division level, i.e. tactical, to generalship is a huge step.

Even by Patraeus' own manual he doesn't have the means to his end. So he is gambling his reputation on the outcome. Or is he?

Not in my book.

As he has said, the resolution is not military, it's political. And he is right.

The first mistake is to think that we are at war in Iraq. At war with whom? He, Patraeus, is trying to make the political space for movement. But our administration always seems deaf and blind to any urgency. Maliki is frozen.

In short, the military have given all we have asked of them. They delivered the ground war victory. We (or, at least, the administration) have deprived them of all necessary plans, tools and capability since.

I do not understand the Republicans who support this president who is so absolutely devoid of action or decision.

We've gone 4 years without any civilian/admistrative/CinC vision, planning, or discipline in thought or deed.

Time to get out, and force the issues.

Somewhere recently I read that the Iraqi legislature wants to take a two-month summer vacation. If this is indeed the case, it seems even less likely that they'll get anything substantive done before September.

GMF: Seriously....seriously, do you think the Dems have the guts to stop funding this thing and bring the troops home?

Not now, but they are building up to it.

I can't be the only one who noticed this: after the meeting in Cairo, all the Arab and Middle Eastern states looking to help finance and promote Iraq's recovery have layed down checkpoints of progress to validate that support.

checkpoints and benchmarks: yes.

schedule of withdrawal: no.

However, September now looms as a very firm deadline. Unless Iraqi violence and American casualties are way down from what they now are, Congress will find the strength to start ordering U.S. forces home.

We have to engineer a defeat in Iraq with George Bush's name on it before 2008, and with no Democratic fingerprints on the knife in the military's back.

This is why we can't just raise a bill on funding all by itself. It has to look like we actually support the troops.

Since it's certain that Hillary will be the next president, and that she would not want to deal with Iraq (and probably couldn't, come to that), 2008 is our deadline.

Perhaps, like me, you're not quite as impressed with David Petraeus as everyone else*.

You're in good company.

SEPTEMBER - But but...

WAIT, Bush is asking for a "clean bill" as in a bill that doesn't require ANY of those nasty "benchmarks" that Bush himself, hyped about some four months ago. Sooooo, Bush would have to set benchmarks, but surely that would be nothing short of appeasement to Dems, and thus meaning that Bush would have to sign an "unclean" bill, just like the one he happened to veto.

If there are NO benchmarks, it's just more stay the course, war without end, more Repug cultism.

Lets face it Repugs, SEPTEMBER is a TIMELINE.

In fact it's Sen. Carl Levin's "timeline" but repugs want to pretend this TIMELINE is their idea?

Fine, September it is, and the benchmarks are....benchmarks please???

Lets face it Kevin Drum, the Repugs are lying again. Another bait and switch, another lie. It's still stay the course, stay until Repugs lose more seats in Washington, maybe by then, they,ll see how Bush did something ugly to the GOP, made them completely irrelevant.

Now, why did I get another blue screen of death from WM? Is Pat pissed off at me again?

marler, as I said, the military have done all they were asked.

It is the Republiscum that want to sink the knife in the Military's back as they still claim this to be a war with a military solution.

It is not. I say not. Patraeus says not. The solution is political.

Listen: . . . P O L I T I C A L !

So this president (I say that with reserve) has done nothing in 4 whole years to redirect this war to any reasonable solution.

Unimginative? Incapable? Unintelligent? Unflexible? Unregognizing? Unreasonable? All these and so much more. This is what happens when the US citizenship votes in an idiot with a private agenda.

If you do not recognize the trouble this country is in, and still whole heartedly support the present incumbent, I can say for sure that there is nothing I can say that will induce you back to reality.

This man has abused the Constitution, the law, the process of government, the appointment of officials. If you remember Nixon, this guy might actually be worse! Surprised?

Not you. You absolve all sins.

This man has abused the Constitution, the law, the process of government, the appointment of officials. If you remember Nixon, this guy might actually be worse! Surprised?

But...Clinton got a hummer!

I couldn't bring myself to do it myself, but I would pay for a free hummer for any president of the USA that abides by the laws and the constitution of the USA.

Step away, George! You failed. Big Time.

I once proposed a cabinet level position, call it the Office of Presidential Stress Alleviation. That would pretty much be it's mission statement.

The Republicans speak on Plan B in Iraq:

"By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), May 6, 2007.

"I have no Plan B."
John McCain, on his support for the Iraq surge, April 13, 2007.

"Plan B was to make Plan A work."
Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace, on Iraq, March 5, 2007.

"I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A."
Secretary of State Rice, asked what the U.S. should do if the Iraqi government does not live up to its assurances, March 5, 2007.

I couldn't bring myself to do it myself, but I would pay for a free hummer for any president of the USA that abides by the laws and the constitution of the USA.

Step away, George! You failed. Big Time.

"I know, I know: counting on moderate Republicans to come to their senses is a sucker's bet. But there are a lot of things coming to a head this time: the initial progress report on the surge that's due in September, the looming 2008 elections..."

Yep, vote Republican: your congressman will do the right thing once every 2 or 6 years, depending on the chamber of Congress.

So, Byron York thinks "... it's fair to say the president fears what might happen if he pushes the Iraqis too hard"? While our soldiers bleed out their brain cavities into the sands of Iraq, our national treasury is depleted and all of the goodwill that generations of Americans worked so hard to build with foreign countries is squandered?

I think it's fair to say that both Byron York and George W. Bush don't know what the fuck they are talkin' about.

"moderate" republicans are a dummy variable in our political conversations.

What the Dems should do now that Bush vetoed the funding bill: send a bill to the president that includes taxes increases (gas tax maybe?) to pay for the war as we go.

I trust the steadfast thoughtful leadership of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and General Petraeus, not the armchair Monday morning quarterbacking of bloggers of either political persuasion.

Is Nab an exotic avatar of Al? No, no. Monday morning quarterbacking it when you sit back, watch something unfold and boast about how you could have done it better. In the case of the Iraq War, EVERYTHING that has gone wrong was predicted in advance and your steadfast trio ignored all the predictions.

Making reasoned and correct judgments about the future course of events is prescience.

notthere: It is the Republiscum that want to sink the knife in the Military's back as they still claim this to be a war with a military solution.
...
It is not. I say not. Patraeus says not. The solution is political.

I think what Petraeus said is that it can not be purely military, but there has to be a political solution as well. If there is a military component to the solution, he has until September to make it happen. If somebody comes after Petraeus and says that he has the "real solution", nobody will believe him.

Should American forces withdraw before there is a political solution, there may be a civil war. No one knows how long it will last, who will win, or the cost in lives and destruction. Nobody is stabbing anybody in the back. The major decisions are being openly debated, and are going to be made openly.

"the initial progress report on the surge that's due in September,"

Lord knows THAT is written in stone

"the looming 2008 elections,"

this just means that Republican congressmen will whine and fuss. Bush won't listen, because he doesn't care. And even if there's a vote to cut off funding, tell me he won't shake down the rest of the DOD budget to find the money to make it to January 2009. Go on, tell me.

"hardening public support against the war,"

this just means that even more citizens will whine and fuss. Bush doesn't care. See above. The most important thing to understand is that, no matter what happens, George Bush does not care and he will not do anything that he sees as defeat. The list of things he does not care about includes whining, outrage, universal revulsion, cutoff of funding, and impeachment. When in doubt, review the previous two sentences.

"and the likelihood that Iraqi politics will be as stalemated as ever when September rolls around."

Of course it will. It will be stalemated in May, and in September, and in December, and in all of the other months, as it has been since we first invaded. This is not evidence that things are at a breaking-point; this is evidence that things are crap and have been for a long time. George Bush does not care if things are crap. See above.

The only thing that inclines me to believe that this administration wouldn't try to strongarm itself into a third term or an "interregnum" for the sake of 'security' and 'freedom' is that Bush is absolutely desperate to drop this reeking failure in the next president's lap.

MatthewRmarler -- nothing has been openly debated.

The road to war was not. The aftermath was not. The plan was never laid out.

The one thing this present administration never has is an open conversation . . . or debate.

They expect aquiescence to some unknown, unperceived "plan". No thank you.

At the moment we have no idea what the president's "plan" is, how long it my "last", what it might "cost, whether in lives or treasure or destruction, or who might "win". We see no sign of pressuring a movement toward a "political solution" so there is no chance of the military helping.

"Decider" is a joke. I'd love to sit down with him on his "deciding".

GWB, by inaction, is most asasuredly stabbing the troops in the back.

"Why do you think things aren't going pretty much as the Shi'a dominated gov't wants them to(and I don't mean al Maliki)? The Sunni are getting paid back for 40 years of oppression both by the ISF/Police (aka death squads) and the Coalition (aka the US).

The Kurds are getting to husband their strength and kicking out Sunnis while they wait for the December vote on Kirkuk; I can't imagine why the Maliki gov't isn't forcing the Kurds to stop that .

The area around Basra will see the Brits gone shortly and the Shi'a won't have to keep smuggling the oil to finance the militia, they'll be able to fund the military in the clear.

Then it's just clean up a few pockets of Sunnis (mainly the ones we put walls around) to get the message to the rest and track down and kill the Al Qaeda Sunni still stupid enough to stay in Iraq once we leave. Then, they and the Iranians can work on the Sauds.
Can't wait to see what we do then."
Posted by: TJM on May 8, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Interesting analysis. What's your take on the upcoming trip by Cheney to Saudi Arabia for the latest sitdown? It does seem like we are starting to side with the Sunni and with the Saudis and distancing ourselves from the Shia govt in Baghdad and lumping them with the Iranians.

Doc, you either stay up too late for me or you work the midnight shift staring at that screen.

Cheney etal. keep getting played by the Saudis who know they have the lowest lifting costs in the ME. Turmoil in Iraq works just fine for them since it means the Shi'a don't get the kind of piggybank the Sauds do. Iraq potentially has more reserves than S.A. and they haven't even explored 90% of the place.

If GwB had been right, and of course he wasn't, a stable Iraq would start to seriously explore for oil without the security problems. Shi'a would be banking some serious coin to finance the kind of unrest the Sauds have for years. Where? Why right next door.

The Sauds had to make an accomodation to the Wahhabists a long time ago, but I don't think they like each other. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Arabs don't do subtlety.

September is never going to come for the Republicans.

Does anyone think they will fall on their sword and pull out pre-victory, just because we can never win? Bullshit.

Around August they will be furiously brainstorming how to blame all this on the Democrats in time for 2008. That's all they can do.

Only slightly OT:

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/

Let's bring democracy to the Middle East!

"niggling doubts about Petraeus"

Kevin, what do you have against the Peter Pace Principle?

notthere: nothing has been openly debated.

whatever

Petraeus is not the man for this Iraq surge job; No one is.

Anyone that would write the manual on how to fight an insurgency, THEN ignore his own rules is a fool.

Petraeus is there for his own selfish reasons.

I've conceded in prior comments that we die-hard supporters of the war have to show demonstrable progress in order for the US to keep our commitment to that country. But let me turn that truism around -- what if there are demonstrable benchmarks reached, and a palpable decline in the daily violence by September -- will Kevin Drum suck it up and admit that our troops are performing a worthwhile service at last?

nothere:
"Because otherwise it means the country being torn apart à la Lebanon, and living in the middle ages, while the Kurds look on and gain strength over them.

"Because every Arab country to their west and south will support the Sunnis and the US will be watching every Iranian move."

It is not being torn apart like Lebanon. The Shiite south is under firm control. The Sunnis are being run out of the country -- about one-quarter are gone already. The Shiite militias are slowly winning, so why should they quit?

As to the surrounding Sunni countries coming to their co-religionist's rescue, they have been yelling bloody murder for years now but never sent their troups in. Just as they yell bloody murder about the Israelis oppressing the Palestinians, but haven't attacked since 1974. None of them want to get directly involved in Iraq because that would mean war with Iran, and maybe also the US.

I've conceded in prior comments that we die-hard supporters of the war have to show demonstrable progress in order for the US to keep our commitment to that country.

Is this the kind of progress you are looking for?:

"A sharp increase in mortar attacks on the Green Zone -- the one-time oasis of security in Iraq's turbulent capital -- has prompted the U.S. Embassy to issue a strict new order telling all employees to wear flak vests and helmets while in unprotected buildings or whenever they are outside."

I know... I know... wait one more Friedman... and everything will be better....

Who knows what Petraeus really thinks? He's decided that it's a career-enhancing move to keep telling his boss the President what he wants to hear.

Kevin Drum wrote:

"I continue to have this niggling thought in the back of my head that he's the guy who was originally in charge of training Iraqi security forces, and that really didn't work out so well."
_____________________

Training isn't some one shot deal wherein the trainees are made forever competent. If not renewed with equal vigor, the lessons learned in training tend to go stale.

That's why, e.g., our WWII Marine divisions, fresh from Guadalcanal and Tarawa, were immediately put back into training prior to the next landings, just as if they weren't combat veterans who had been trained many times before.

Petraeus could only organize the training, he couldn't guarantee it would be reinforced with further training and good leadership in combat.

"Who knows what Petraeus really thinks? He's decided that it's a career-enhancing move to keep telling his boss the President what he wants to hear."
___________________

And we are all competent to make the above statement (or similar ones) because we have all spent so much time with Petraeus and men like him, in training, in combat, in school, in command, over the years and around the world, through whatever sacrifices he and his family ever made for the Service.

It always comes down to if the man doesn't agree with us, he's a scum-sucking careerist looking out only for himself. Yeah, you people are just the sort we want in charge.