Category Archives: Iraq War

Blackwater Headlines Tell the Tale

Posted on by

Lots of stuff about Blackwater in the news today.

At the Washington Post, see “Report Details Killings by Blackwater Staff in Iraq” by Karen DeYoung, “Gold-Plated Rambos” by Patrick Pexton, and an editorial, “Blackwater Waves.”

At the New York Times, John Broder writes “Report Says Firm Sought to Cover Up Iraq Shootings.”

At TPM Muckraker, Spencer Ackerman writes, “Email Shows State Officials Doing Blackwater Damage Control.”

At Salon, see Ben Van Heuvelen’s “The Bush administration’s ties to Blackwater” and P.W. Singer’s “The dark truth about Blackwater.”

At Newsweek, see “Death From All Sides” by Kevin Peraino.

And, finally, see “Republicans ask Waxman to postpone Blackwater hearing” at Politico.

Loose Lips, Drool Drips

Posted on by

Media Matters:

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers”

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.” Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as “Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington,” that “[t]here’s a lot” that people who favor U.S. withdrawal “don’t understand” and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.’ … ‘Save the — keeps the troops safe’ or whatever,” adding, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” “Mike” from Olympia replied, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” Limbaugh interjected, “The phony soldiers.” The caller, who had earlier said, “I am a serving American military, in the Army,” agreed, replying, “The phony soldiers.”

In RushWorld, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, who died in Baghdad a few days ago, were “phony soldiers.” Gray and Mora were two of the authors of a New York Times op-ed called “The War As We Saw It” that criticized the Iraq occupation.

Limbaugh has never served in the military. He got a medical deferment from the Vietnam-era draft. Exactly how Rush would know what constitutes “phoniness” in soldiering is anyone’s guess. Historically, loyalty to “the cause” has never been a prerequisite for soldiering, as the bulk of the wars fought since the invention of war didn’t involve a cause at all, and soldiers fought because they were ordered to fight. Military historians long have noted that soldiers on the battlefield say they fight for each other, for their comrades in arms, more than for king and country.

See also Jon Soltz, “So I’m a ‘Phony Soldier,’ Rush?”

And, of course, criticism of George Bush and his “policies” is not unpatriotic, a point few righties seem to be able to wrap their heads around.

A few right-wing blogs have weighed in, all huffing and puffing indignantly at the liberal smear of Rush. They note that Rush didn’t explicitly say, word-for-word, “Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are phony soldiers.” Someone else brought up soldiers who express criticism of the occupation to media, and Rush interjected “phony soldiers.” See, that’s entirely different.

So far, the best explanation of the smear against Rush comes from the ever brilliant Macranger. After repeating the much-debunked lie that Media Matters is funded by George Soros, Macranger points out that it was a caller, not Rush, who criticized critical soldiers — Rush was just helping him out when he said “phony soldiers.” Then in the next paragraph Macranger says [emphasis added],

By the way, his and Rush’s opinion is not a lone one among active soldiers by the way, many of whom view “malcontents” with not so loving feelings. In fact as I told you before that back “in the day” we spotted these types in basic training and “marked them” with a special party! You know, to let them know just what they had signed up for in case they forgot.

I think somebody needs to get his story straight. See also Digby.

Do It

Posted on by

About the Webb Amendment:

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced a bi-partisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas. The amendment also sets a minimum 1-to-3 year ratio for National Guard and Reserve members and units.

Thirty-one members of the Senate have signed onto Webb’s amendment as original co-sponsors, including Senator Chuck Hagel, the lead Republican cosponsor. …

Senator Webb’s amendment sets a floor for minimum periods between deployments for both units and members. It states that if a unit or member of a regular component of the Armed Forces is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, they will have the same time at home –“well time” — before being redeployed. Guard and Reserve units and members will have a minimum floor of three years dwell time prior to being redeployed.

The amendment, however, states that the ideal rotation scenarios are a 1-to-2 deployment-to-dwell ratio for active duty troops and five years between subsequent deployments for the Guard and Reserve. The amendment also states the sense of Congress that units and members of Reserve components should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year.

John Amato:

Jim Webb made an exclusive video to explain why Congress must support the troops and pass the “Webb Amendment,” on Wednesday. He asks us to call our elected officials and tell them to support this very simple, but important measure. It received 56 votes last time it was introduced, but was filibustered by the Rubber Stamp Republicans which included McConnell and Warner.

Digby:

The Webb Amendment is a powerful piece of legislation, backed by the Military Officers Association and many military families who are seeing their loved ones deployed over and over again until their marriages and their finances are at a breaking point. Although it may serve to force the administration to withdraw troops more quickly than they wish to, this is not a political ploy. Even before the surge, experts said that the Iraq war was breaking the military. Now it is far worse. Someone has to step in and do something about this problem and it’s obvious it isn’t going to be the Republican party.

Until today, it was looking very promising that Webb might get the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster. Vulnerable Republicans and those in states with a heavy military presence heard an earful from their constituents on this subject over the summer recess. But with His Eminence Warner now making little whimpering noises that he will accept the useless little Christmas sugar plum from the White House instead of backing it, he may give cover to enough wavering Republicans to derail this popular, necessary legislation.


Act for Change:

There is a lot of rhetorical abuse around the idea of supporting the troops. Well, Senators Webb (D-VA) and Hagel (R-NE) — both decorated veterans — have re-introduced legislation that is unambiguous on the subject. Anyone who votes against this bill is clearly a hypocrite who is simply supporting unending war.

Thanks to President Bush’s ill-conceived troop surge, our soldiers serving in Iraq face the daily stress of maintaining a military occupation under constant attack, all the while being away from their support network of friends and family for multiple — and often suddenly-extended — tours of duty.

Senators Webb and Hagel are introducing an amendment this week to provide relief for our overextended troops. It ensures that active-duty troops spend equal amounts of time at home between deployments as they did in a combat zone; it also mandates that Guard and Reserve units cannot be redeployed until they have been home for three times the length of their first tour of duty. This legislation will not only provide our troops with the rest & recovery periods they need and deserve; it will also clip President Bush’s wings and force him to begin drawing down the number of troops in Iraq.

Mark Kleiman:

The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don’t pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.

If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it’s their stubbornness that’s holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President’s desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.

As of October 1, there’s no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long …

Really, this isn’t very hard. With the voters overwhelmingly interested in getting us the hell out of Iraq, the Democrats can make full use of the power of the purse without worrying about a backlash, especially with Webb as the public face of the campaign.

Me: There’s also a “write your senators” form on this page. Do it. Do it this morning.

Please call and ask these senators to support Jim Webb’s pro-troop amendment:

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
DC: 202-224-6665
Anchorage: 907-271-3735

George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
DC: (202) 224-3353
Cleveland: (216) 522-7095

Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina)
DC: 202-224-6342
Raleigh: 866-420-6083

John Warner (R-Virginia) *
DC: (202) 224-2023
Roanoke: (540) 857-2676

Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
DC: 202-224-2541
Louisville: 502-82-6304

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
DC: 202-224-4254
Harrisburg: (717) 782-3951

Bonus – Ask Harry Reid to “don’t let Republicans obstruct – make them stand and filibuster”:

Harry Reid
DC: 202-224-3542
Las Vegas: 702-388-5020

* Warner originally supported the bill, but yesterday word got out that he is reconsidering. The President has made noises about bringing a few thousand troops home by Christmas, and “There is a lot of importance in that,” Warner says. However, the troops designated to come home before Christmas were scheduled to come home before Christmas, anyway. Bush isn’t giving away a damn thing. And the fact that some troops are coming home doesn’t relieve the exhaustion of those who remain. Warner needs to hear that some of us know a scam when we see it.

See also: Taylor Marsh.

Follow the (Oil) Money

Posted on by

Paul Krugman:

To understand what’s really happening in Iraq, follow the oil money, which already knows that the surge has failed.

This column has a must-read explanation of what’s going on with oil revenues in Iraq and why it means the Iraqi government ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Here’s just a small part:

… Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.

Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy. But that isn’t all that surprising, given this administration’s history. Remember, Halliburton was still signing business deals with Iran years after Mr. Bush declared Iran a member of the “axis of evil.”

No, what’s interesting about this deal is the fact that Mr. Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be. By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad’s disapproval, he’s essentially betting that the Iraqi government — which hasn’t met a single one of the major benchmarks Mr. Bush laid out in January — won’t get its act together. Indeed, he’s effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation in any meaningful sense of the term.

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. And I suspect that most people in the Bush administration — maybe even Mr. Bush himself — know this, too.

Conclusion:

All in all, Mr. Bush’s actions have not been those of a leader seriously trying to win a war. They have, however, been what you’d expect from a man whose plan is to keep up appearances for the next 16 months, never mind the cost in lives and money, then shift the blame for failure onto his successor.

Again, you must read the whole column.

Other voices:

Fred Kaplan:

President Bush’s TV address tonight was the worst speech he’s ever given on the war in Iraq, and that’s saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.

New York Times:

Mr. Bush was clear last night — as he was when he addressed the nation in January, September of last year, the December before that and in April 2004 — that his only real plan is to confuse enough Americans and cow enough members of Congress to let him muddle along and saddle his successor with this war that should never have been started.

Marie Cocco:

For the implacable Bush administration and for the impatient Congress, a single force drives all discussion about Iraq. It has not much to do with Iraqis. Their concerns are the future of the U.S. military, of U.S. prestige, of U.S. access to oil, of broader U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. Add to the mix the political imperatives that inspire all of them — Bush’s intent to hand over the messy endgame to the next president; lawmakers’ determination to find a path to re-election that guides them safely through this quagmire — and you have a myopia that is bereft of morality.

Seattle Times:

More and more, the president sounds like he has decided to play out the clock. After American troop levels surged to 160,000 over the past nine months, the number will be reduced to 130,000 by next summer. Petraeus was already committed to bringing several brigades home to meet a promise to limit tours of duty to 15 months.

Weary and wary Americans listening to their president are parsing out the rhetoric and vocabulary of presidential reports. Notice how the word victory is replaced by success, which is not defined.

See also Tim Grieve’s fact check and Naomi Klein on disaster capitalism.

I Don’t Want to Do This

Posted on by

I’m liveblogging this turkey. I haven’t read the advance speech release. I want to be surprised.

Iraq is surviving for its survival, he says. Well, who the hell’s fault is that? Petraeus and Crocker say the surge is working. The goal of the surge is to provide security. Our success in meeting these objectives allows us to bring some troops home, he says. That and the fact that we’re running out of troops.

He’s bragging about Anbar province again. He’s not mentioning the death of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha.

Oh, sorry, he’s mentioning Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha now, although not by name.

Anbar Anbar Anbar Anbar.

He’s trying ver hard to look sincere. So far I haven’t seen him smile at inappropriate times.

Got this in email:

* This year is worse than last year for U.S. troops – more were killed every month this year compared to the same month last year. See Icasualties.org/
* Independent investigations by the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times showed sectarian violence is up–not down as Petraeus and Bush have claimed. Bush and Petraeus claim violence in Iraq is down, with 960 civilians dead in August. But AP found 1,809 killed in August, up from 1,760 in July. LA Times found similar numbers, with August worse than July and June.
* As the Washington Post reports, experts “accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators” — such as only counting the deaths of people shot in the back, not in the front.
* A USA Today-Gallup poll shows 53% of Americans don’t trust Petraeus to deliver an independent and objective report.

He’s not saying shit we didn’t already know.

He said that people who saw Iraq as central to American security and those who want the troops home have been at odds. Not to He didn’t mention those who realize Iraq is not central to American security.

He still wants a free Iraq. I want a free America.

Now he’s speaking to Congress and asking for their support for Petraeus’s recommendations.

He said freedom is not free. Now I know I have to take a drink.

There’s a dog show on Animal Planet.

Oh good, it’s over.

Jack Reed is giving the Dem response. I don’t think Reed was the best choice. I would have liked to see Jim Webb again.

Reed is making good points, though.

I’m watching on MSNBC, so Olbermann and Matthews are doing post-game. Matthews says Bush said there are 36 other countries fighting in Iraq. I missed that. That’s hallucinatory.

Matthews: Bush said we are kicking ass. If we’re kicking ass, how come there’s no government coming together. No mention of why we should be fighting; just the dangers of leaving.

Olbermann: Nothing like making a bad self-fulfilling prophecy work for you.

Howard Fineman: The president talked about a permanent presence in Iraq.

Pat Buchanan is on saying that the President did what he needed to do, which is what he is paid to say.

Olbermann: The changes in Anbar didn’t have anything to do with the surge.

Rachel Maddow: People in Anbar no longer fear being beheaded. Instead, they fear being blown up.

Olbermann said Bush was supposed to be restrained in his certitude. Was he?

Joe Biden: Both Petraeus and Crocker acknowledged there was no political movement. By the President’s own standards this whole thing has been a failure. He’s just trying to keep the soldiers there for the next administration. Bizarre.

Biden says the speech was an insult the American people.

Matthews: We’re given a picture of a nation that is an ally fighting for its life against al Qaeda. No mention of the insurgence. When you meet with the President, does he live in this world?

Biden, short version: No.

Mike Huckabee is on speaking the GOP party line. And I’m missing a good CSI rerun on ABC for this. Appreciate it.

Here’s John Edwards’s response:

Here’s the rebuttal from the Center from American Progress:

Discuss, if you feel up to it.

The Dying Horse

Posted on by

Ryan Grim writes a post for The Politico titled “‘Betray Us’ ad unites GOP, distracts Dems“:

To judge from the wall-to-wall coverage of MoveOn.org’s full-page ad in the New York Times Monday, the liberal group strolled to the 18th hole up by two strokes, pulled out its driver and shanked one deep into the woods.

Wow, that sounds like a disaster for the Dems. But wait …

The solidifying beltway consensus is that the ad, which refers to General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us,” was a blunder of the highest order, uniting Republicans and distracting Democrats at a time the party could instead be pressing for an end to the war.

Yes, Virginia, there are two Americas — inside the Beltway, and everywhere else. Outside of blog aficionados, Rush’s dittoheads and the zombies who watch Faux News, did “everywhere else” even notice?

Still, the Right is flogging the dying horse as hard as it can, because at the moment it’s all they’ve got. They can’t attack the Dems for wanting a quicker withdrawal from Iraq, or for being opposed to President Bush’s Iraq policies, because the public is overwhelmingly on the Dems’ side. So they are working as hard as they can to whip up public outrage over the “betray us” ad, attempting to turn it into a weapon of mass destraction.

Right before the midterm elections last year righties tried to turn a badly phrased joke by John Kerry into a national scandal that would tilt the elections in their favor. As former Republican congressman Dick Armey explained on MSNBC’s Hardball (October 31, 2006), “You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage.”

In that case, the feigned moral outrage seems to have persuaded John Kerry not to attempt another presidential run. But Dems won the midterms, anyway.

Steve M:

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post — which, during Giuliani’s mayoralty, served as City Hall’s second press office — is parroting remarks Rudy is making about Hillary Clinton’s response to the Petraeus dog-and-pony show. Giuliani and the Post are working in tandem to sustain the dissipating outrage about the MoveOn ad, and are desperately trying to tie it to Hillary.

A bit of the Post editorial that Steve quotes —

Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it [the Moveon ad], she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday

Giuliani, by contrast, had it exactly right.

He called the MoveOn ad “one of the more disgusting things that has happened in American politics.”

Added America’s Mayor: “The failure of the Democratic candidates to really condemn that, given how much money MoveOn.org spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, is unfortunate.”

See how it works — so much as criticizing General Petraeus is an outrage. It wouldn’t surprise me of Bush’s speechwriters work an oblique reference to the Moveon ad into tonight’s speech.

Perhaps no one should tell Rudy what other people have said …

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

I predict the Right will continue to feign outrage over the Moveon ad for another week or so, which is about the time it will take for them to realize the horse is dead and nobody cares.

Blocking the Exits

Posted on by

Warren P. Strobel writes for McClatchy Newspapers about yesterday’s Senate hearings:

Much to the frustration of the senators — mostly Democrats, but including a few Republicans — who grilled them Tuesday, neither the general nor the diplomat outlined a strategy for putting Iraq back together or a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. …

… lawmakers complained that neither Petraeus nor Crocker could explain how the Iraq war fits into Bush’s war on terror or how it’s protecting Americans.

One of the most jaw-dropping moments in the hours of back-and-forth came when retiring Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Petraeus whether his proposal for Iraq — including a reduction of U.S. troops to pre-surge levels of 130,000 — would make the United States safer.

“Sir, I don’t know, actually,” Petraeus replied.

Fred Kaplan writes,

Two things stand out in Petraeus’ response. First, he refused to indulge in President Bush’s spurious rhetoric about how we’re fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here. Second, he was, in effect, telling the senators: I am doing what soldiers do; I am trying my best to accomplish the mission; the mission is related to the policy, and the policy isn’t mine.

This is what President Bush is hoping no one notices. He speaks of the “commanders on the ground” as if they were the ones setting policy. For example, he said in August 2006:

If we leave before the job will be done, those who sacrificed, those brave volunteers who sacrifice in our United States military will have died in vain. And as General Abizaid has said, if we leave before the job is done — if we leave the streets of Baghdad, the enemy will follow us to our own streets in America. (Applause.)

The stakes are high. I believe the only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done. That’s what I believe. I’m making decisions based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground. I want to assure you, polls and focus groups will not decide the Iraq policy in the global war on terror. (Applause.)

He’s saying he is setting policy based on what the commanders tell him. But Petraeus clearly said it’s not up to the military to set policy. His testimony was not about the worthiness of the mission, but about how the mission given him might be achieved (short answer: he’s not sure, but he’ll get back to us in March).

Back to Kaplan:

In one sense, today’s hearings dealt President George W. Bush a harsh blow. Many of the senators’ questions dealt with strategic issues, which Petraeus and Crocker—through no fault of their own—could not really answer to anyone’s full satisfaction. Even the vast majority of Republican senators at least cocked their eyebrows.

Nearly all the senators seemed to recognize that the few, much-vaunted successes—especially in Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have joined with U.S. forces to defeat al-Qaida terrorists—have little to do with the main issues of this war: sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites and the failure of the central government to mediate, much less settle, those conflicts. As Richard Lugar, the foreign relations committee’s ranking Republican put it, “The progress may be beside the point.” The U.S. troops may be “like a farmer planting crops on flood plains.”

Yet in another sense, Bush will probably recover from the blow without much damage. As counterinsurgency theorists understand, a combatant can win every battle and still lose the war. Similarly, the Senate Democrats won on points in today’s clashes on the issues, yet Bush will probably win the ultimate contest: the vote, in the coming weeks, on whether to continue with his plan.

In recent weeks, Bush has put all his chips on Petraeus’ testimony. He will no doubt now endorse the commander’s “proposal” for a modest troop reduction and pretend that it constitutes a compromise (even though it was physically inevitable). And he will repeatedly cite the testimony from Petraeus and Crocker that “some progress” is being made and that further withdrawals might be disastrous.

Headlines today say that Bush will announce a troop withdrawal in an address to the nation Thursday night. What this means is that sometime, probably July 2008, the troop levels in Iraq will go back to what they were a year ago, before the “surge.” Some progress. And it’s my understanding that the numbers are being determined by the fact that we’re running out of troops who haven’t been “rotated” past exhaustion, not by any real change in policy.

No More Mr. Nice Blog:

You realize, of course, that President Bush’s planned withdrawal of some troops next summer is going to be all over your TV screen, in an attempt to influence the ’08 election.

Troops rotate into and out of Iraq all the time, but I’m guessing that the Bushies are going to try to make these trips home into big, visually exciting spectacles, preferably featuring him and/or Laura and/or various GOP luminaries, that will be carried live and then rerun endlessly. The White House is going to try to create images that will have the same impact as the pictures of returning Vietnam POWs and the “split-screen” release of the Iranian hostages just as Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as president.

I remember during the Vietnam War, from time to time President Nixon would announce that X number of troops were coming home from Vietnam that month, as if this were an extraordinary thing. This announcement would be followed up by journalists (we still had a few back then) explaining that the number X represented the normal troop rotation. I don’t think Nixon fooled anybody, except those who were predisposed to being fooled. But, like I said, we still had real journalists in those days.

The simple fact is that Petraeus couldn’t say when all troops could be withdrawn, because that’s not a military consideration. It’s a policy consideration. And he doesn’t set the policy.

Back to Warren Strobel of McClatchy:

“Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now, for what? The president said let’s buy time. Buy time? For what?” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran who also will retire next year.

Most experts argue that stabilizing Iraq requires two things above all: political reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and Iraqi security forces that can stand on their own.

Petraeus and Crocker could promise neither.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., asked Crocker whether ethnic reconciliation is likely in the 16 months that Bush has left in office.

“Senator, I could not put a timeline on it or a target date,” Crocker replied. There are “hopeful signs,” he said, but “how long that is going to take and, frankly, even ultimately whether it will succeed, I can’t predict.”

Cost-benefit analysis, anyone?

He Doesn’t Know

Posted on by

“Petraeus Doesn’t Know if His Strategy Makes America Safer”

Update: Watch for yourself.

As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s not up to the generals — even the ones on the ground — to decide why we’re in Iraq or whether we should be in Iraq. That’s the job of civilian political leadership. It’s the job of generals to take the mission they are given and try to accomplish it. Bush has been hiding behind Petraeus and other generals. Somebody ought to take Senator Warner’s question and beat Bush over the head with it.

Update 2: See also “Anti-War Minister Is Attacked, Gets Leg Broken for Trying to Enter Petraeus Hearing.”

Kicking the Can

Posted on by

Michael Abramowitz writes at WaPo:

The long-awaited testimony this afternoon of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, once seen as a potential turning point in war policy, seemed more like an exercise of kicking the can down the road.

Wow. How … expected.

Appearing before two House committees, Petraeus confirmed that 30,000 U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next summer, but that was hardly unexpected: Officials have been forecasting for months that the so-called surge would have to end no later than April 2008 or there would be unacceptable strains on the American military.

But Petraeus left the larger questions — what will be the future size and mission of the American “footprint” in Iraq — unanswered. He offered hints that the reductions might continue beyond next summer but said he would not be able to offer a definitive judgment until March.

“Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous,” Petraeus testified.

Well, so much for that. Sen. Harry Reid has released this statement:

“Today, we heard that the Bush Administration likely intends to keep at least 130,000 troops in Iraq through next summer. Our enemies around the globe gain great advantage by having the United States mired in an Iraqi civil war. Clearly, continuing to pursue the President’s flawed escalation policy until at least July 2008 is not in the national interest of the United States.

“U.S. national security requires that we truly and immediately change course in Iraq, so that America can more effectively dedicate our resources to other, more pressing challenges we face across the globe. The longer we keep over 130,000 troops in Iraq, the less incentive Iraqis have to engage in the needed political reconciliation and the longer we avoid dealing with several pressing threats to our national security: Bin Laden remains at large and his terrorist organization has rebuilt its strength to pre-9/11 levels, Afghanistan’s stability is being undermined as the Taliban and narco-traffickers grow in strength, and Iran and other countries and groups pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology.”

The Senate Dems also released a fact check that’s worth a look. See also Think Progress, “FACT CHECK: Petraeus To Withdraw Troops Next Summer Because Of Broken Military, Not ‘Progress.’”

Meanwhile, the Right Blogosphere is still hyperventilating over the Moveon.org ad. Howard Fineman is on Countdown right now saying that the GOP is whipping up outrage over the ad as a way to go on offense against Democrats. They can’t go on offense against the Dems on the war, you see, so they have to grab whatever phony issue they can. All day long rightie bloggers have dutifully jacked up the pitiful victimized whining act, sometimes to genuinely hallucinatory degrees.

And, of course, not one has actually addressed the facts Moveon presents in the ad.

Macranger predicts “this is most likely the day that puplic opinion for Democrats begins a nose dive from which they will not recover before 2008.”

Every Democrat candidate for President who has taken money from Moveon.org which now have to answer to the American people. They’re not going to denounce Moveon.org or any affliliation [sic] with any other leftwing nut group. They’re bought and paid for and they know it.

Of course, this is the same guy who wrote in April 2006 that “the pure and simple fact is as I told you this is going to be a vindicating summer for supporters of the Bush Administration.”

If anything, I’d think association — they aren’t affiliated — with Moveon helps the Dems, because it might remind people that some Dems really are against the war and the Bush Administration. If Dem popularity sinks after today it won’t be because of Moveon. It’ll be because the Dems didn’t push back against the Bushies and the war hard enough.