What Petraeus Reports. The slow-boring of bottom-up progress in Anbar. Shaky stats on violence in Baghdad. Unstable Iraqi government. Iraqi military, police, and hookers all making "progress," but only the hookers are expected to meet objectives within next decade. American assistance will be crucial to their success.
What Petraeus Wants. To keep his 160,000 troops until April. Get the American public to buy into "strategic patience." All he'll get is the troops
How the Dems will Respond. Treat Petraeus with exaggerated deference. Ask gentle questions about statistics. Rely on liberal bloggers to attack. Bloggers attack cowardice of Dems as well as Petraeus.
The Dems Want. Keep Petraeus from becoming a lightning rod for pro-war sentiment.
What Dems will do. The Dems will forget Petraeus as soon as he returns to Iraq. Then they will pass war appropriations measures that Bush will veto. They'll fight veto a little harder than last time. Then cave at the last moment. Again.
The Outcome. Another six-month wait until April 2008 when surge is supposed to end. But the surge won't end because Petraeus will recommend that units be extended again. That's a recipe for a Democratic landslide but all the Republicans think about is launching a new war against Iran.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
You really need to get out a little more often.
To be fair, the parts where caric doesn't rely on his own judgement are, in my opinion, spot on.
Liberal bloggers will appreciate ef's gesture of respect. The consensus of the "Council of Liberal Bloggers" is that Bush will attack Iran before leaving the White House. Thus, my comment on attacking Iraq was just parroting conventional wisdom.
I am no advocate of attacking Iran, but given their expressed desire to remove Israel from the map, and the fact that they are supplying arms to those that we are fighting, do you have any actual policy positions in re. Iran, or are you just reflexively contrary to whatever the liberals think President Bush may do?
I am no advocate of attacking Iran
I am. Particularly the "72 hours of unltimate destruction" plan that was tossed around. I got giggly when I thought about that one.
Bush will attack Iran before leaving the White House.
It would benefit us if Iran at least thought he was willing to. The election of the new moderate to Iran council may give some pause to the whole deal but it seems to be too little too late.
The EU did not get very far in negotiating with Ahmanacrazyeyes. I certainly cannot envision any type of ground attack. Now, if Israel struck at their nuclear facilities, you would not hear me complaining.
Never mind that he and the new senior military guy were participants in the embassy takeover and hostage crisis (and he's never apoplogized !! ). A bit of B-2 Stealth justice ought to be in the works.
Of course, that's a genius Sean Hannity talking point, ef, but both Achmajendad (sp), the Iranians, and the CIA all said it's not true.
Professor, did you the poll today? I was curious, because of the echo chamber here in Indy and my habit of reading the blogs of the 26 percent folks, if the American people would be able to detect partisanship where none is admitted, but is evident. Patraeus's op-ed, six weeks prior to the 2004 election (unknown to the PW fans here, because prima facie cases are rarely presented there) is remarkable in its attempt to sway an election (the essence of partisanship) and for its incredible "wrongness."
Heartening to me is that 60% of Americans expect him to present "a biased report." The Bushies and their PR campaign officially have NO power. They can move JD and ef to love them even more, but the American people are immune to him.
Meanwhile, ef, I understand you come from a movement that doesn't think things through, but after your 72 hours of shock and awe, what do you think is going to happen? Without ground troops all you have is a wave of Iranian patriotism, uniting Iran's disparate political groups behind the current government, undercutting the moderates (who swear the West can be negotiated with), putting the drive for the ultimate trump card in high gear, causing a Shia rebellion in Southern Iraq, driving gas prices up to 80 dollars a barrell, and, possibly, allowing the Iranians to block the Straits of Hormuz (driving gas up to 150 dollars).
As opposed to...
At the end of 72 hours of bombing the Iranians emerge sheepishly from their bunkers, carrying their dead children and wives, and say "shucks, boys, we'll stop messing with you."
An attack on Iran would be foolish, desperate, and ultimately disappointing (and possibly fracture the alliance between us and the Brits).
Man, I hadn't realized how deep into the macho wormhole the Right had gone until I realized they learned nothing from Iraq.
"At the end of 72 hours of bombing the Iranians emerge sheepishly from their bunkers, carrying their dead children and wives, and say "shucks, boys, we'll stop messing with you."
Seriously, ef, they only talk like Democrats, they don't actually think or act like them.
B Moe
Despite the Bush administration�s rhetoric and photo ops, the fact remains that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. The redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq is a precondition to restoring our national security Certainly a phased out withdrawl would go a long way toward a foreign policy that provides real solutions for global peace and security and for combatting terrorsim in a realistic way.
The bottom line is that the civil war taking place in Iraq is raging within the same security forces we are arming and training. The weapons we are providing are being used both to kill American troops as well as Iraqi civilians and they are being used to commit terrorist acts.
This policy only serves to further endanger our troops and pour gasoline on an already out of control civil war.
Time for a course change.
"Despite the Bush administrations rhetoric and photo ops, the fact remains that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq."
If we surrender and leave, the civil war will end? All sides will lay down their arms and suddenly start peaceful negotiations? If it is truly an "already out of control civil war", then all sides will continue fighting until someone emerges as a victor. In other words: there will most certainly be a military solution for someone, we just won't be involved. How is abdicating any responsibility a realistic foreign policy?
B Moe
Here is some good info:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/003102.php
What are some of your sources, Todd?
B Moe
Todd, ignore the right wing embeds, trained to see what they and B Moe want to see. For a fine picture of Fallujah, read the Washington Post article linked from JD. It says similar things WITHOUT the Proud to be an American soundtrack playing in the background (courtesy of B Moe's donation).
Better yet, here are several sources for you, B, courtesy of Kevin Drum: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
I know it's only 5 newspapers, who agree with reality as we see it on the ground and not one right wing reporter reporting what he wants to see (see also Michael Yon).
Of note, also is the the poll done of the Iraqi people, which shows the majority of Iraqis indicating security has gone down since the Surge started. Apparently, a) they haven't seen Gen Patraeus's pie charts and graphs, or b) they didn't get the memo that being killed by a car bomb or being shot between the eyes by the local militiamen meant you did NOT suffer a violent death.
Carry on with your dreaming, B
And, Todd, unlike General Patraeus, remember there are two things the Right desires in Iraq: 1) a UIS presence for another five years or more, and b) a cudgel to use against their real enemies, the evil, scary libs.
Care to address the issue of whether or not it is indeed a fact that there will be no military solution in Iraq, timmy? Your silly ass partisan tirades are probably getting tiresome to the lefties even.
I would also be interested in hearing your full-blown character assasination of Bill Ardolino, there might be some readers out there who don't realize what a vile little son of a bitch you really are.
B Moe
B Moe
Unmoved, as usual. I don't worship the same people you do. I'm sure Bill's a fine guy, but he's a political mouthpiece. Doesn't make him a liar; however, it certainly doesn't make him credible. His information on Falujjah can be taken at face value, because it is also documented by independent voices.
As to your point, the war in Iraq, like all wars, is political (see Clausewitz). There is no US military victory possible in Iraq, as recognized by both Harry Reid and George W.
As a point of fact the military, with certain exceptions, has done a fine job over the last four years of doing its job and protecting their "force structure." There aren't enough of them to pacify the entire country and there is no Iraqi political will to create peace amongst the various factions...Peace doesn't come from the barrel of a gun.
The cop watching the interstate stops people from speeding in front of him/her, but a mile down the road, everyone's flying
Weeding out the pablum (Peace doesn't come from the barrel of a gun? Are you serious?) the question wasn't just about US victory, if the US cuts and runs, do you think military victory is also impossible for all the other parties involved? Or is the US and our allies the only ones with "Lose" as our only options?
You know, forget it.
You have NEVER come up with any strategy EVER to fix this mess. You only give the tired RTO bullshit of "just wait ten years while our boys die." And, we only lose we give up. Do you know what futile is? Day in and day out you argue this war is the perfect endeavor, yet by every metric that is untrue. The Iraqis have failed to meet benchmarks, there is Al Queda in Iraq, there is no power and no running water in the capital, re-building is non-existent, 2 million Iraqis have fled their country, the US has presided over the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. Yet, you tell us it's all wonderful and, if people aren't pussies, we'll win. of course, no one knows what that means and none of you ever explain it as a realistic goal (do you still believe Iraq will be a pro-Western, sectarian democracy?!? If so, that is delusional.)
Why don't you answer your question? Why don't you join/re-up with JD and go off to save this war you love so much. Stop making my cousin put himself in harm's way, because you need someone else to fight your "re-making of the Middle East."
Besides, I get enough Socratic method in the evening.
Actually, I asked the question of Todd, timmy, but after three posts and a dozen paragraphs the best you can come up with is the chickenhawk argument?
No, the best I come up is you have no idea what you're talking about. you're a fundamentally unserious person who spends his days trolling websites so you can make banal arguments and snarky comments, while never offering one iota of thought or depth to anything.
Besides that, this [listen closely] isn't protein wisdom. You don't set the rules here, B. So, if I want to make an argument that you are too much of an ankle biting ninny to join the Armed Forces to support your supposedly deeply held beliefs, then I will make it. Just because you've heard it before, doesn't make it less relevant to your war-mongering self.
Go away, already. JD and ef have a sense of proportion and boundaries. You are just a prick.
"if I want to make an argument that you are too much of an ankle biting ninny to join the Armed Forces to support your supposedly deeply held beliefs, then I will make it."
How about the fact that I am 50 years old, you fucking moron? Is that a good enough excuse for you? Or are you going to accuse me of lying about that?
Whether it is Protein Wisdom or not, you still are a weaselly little bullshit artist who resorts to ad homs whenever he is cornered.
Answer the question: if military victory is unobtainable to the US, is it also unobtainable to all others involved? If not, why can they obtain what we cannot?
You answer it.
50 year olds can serve
www.blackwater.com
I always assumed when discussing things with you that you were reasonably well-read. I apologize for that assumption. To learn about the military, I could suggest a few fine surveys for you, starting with The Face of Battle by John Keegan. After that you can a) get into the higher realms of Statecraft or delve into the details of military campaigns and the the organization of military units.
After that study, maybe you can figure out who can win a war militarily, what victory in a military sense means, the distinctions between strategy and tactics, and the limits of the use of force.
Hell, you can even read a fine series of books from that kook Victor Davis. You'll have to remember to learn different lessons than VDH did, though. I still giggle at his blasting Alexander the Great as a war-mongering, violent bastard for invading "Iraq" and his current love of the same...
Let me know when you understand the limits of force and we can talk about Iraq again.
On the plus side, at least you'll be less ignorant.
On the minus side, you'll still be you.
Victor Davis Hansen has forgotten more about politics and war than timmah has ever known, and timmah is a pretty bright fellow - a bit prone to hyperbole for my tastes, but bright nonetheless.
Post a Comment