Into a Stagnant Cauldron: When Gen. Petraeus comes to Washington next week, he'll be trying to jump start a stagnant American political milieu. But he is likely to fail. President Bush is determined to carry on the war despite strong public opposition. Constant failure, Democratic victories, and the increased isolation of the White House have not convinced the president to draw down American involvement in Iraq. At the same time, White House promotional efforts have had no effect on public opinion or the opposition of Democratic majorities in Congess.
The American political system is deadlocked.
It is interesting to think about what Gen. Petraeus will be trying to accomplish in his media events and appearances before Congress. There will be enormous media attention and public interest in Petraeus. So what's he going to do? Will Petraeus be attempting to shore up President Bush's and the right-wing's position in a way that allows current troop levels to be maintained until next April and provides a basis for hoping that American combat operations will continue indefinitely. In that case, Petraeus might try for a relatively low-key "just the facts ma'am" approach to justifying the American military commitment in Iraq. Or will Petraeus be attempting to break the political logjam and change public sentiment on the war in a dramatic way?
What to do? There's precedent for the latter. After all, Ollie North's testimony changed the dynamic of the debate over the Iran-Contra scandal way back in the dark ages. But to have such a powerful effect, Gen. Petraeus would have to go for something pretty dramatic.
One thing Petraeus could do would be to claim stunning military and political progress. But is there enough progress on the ground to make that plausible.
Gen. Petraeus could also make emotional appeals to American pride and patriotism. The difficulty there is that Petraeus would have to make appeals that are strikingly different from those already made by Pres. Bush and Cheney. I don't think that will work either.
Petraeus could also try to scare the American public concerning the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq. That seems to be the strategy that Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker take with official visitors to Iraq. But the Bush administration has probably worn out that rhetorical vein as well.
As a result, my guess is that Gen. Petraeus is going to focus on shoring up enough conservative support enough to ensure that any presidencial veto is sustained, and then return to Iraq.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats low-keyed their treatment of Petraeus in a way that ensured that Petraeus did not become another Ollie North.
The Petraeus Non-Effect. In other words, it's unlikely that the visit of Gen. Petraeus will have much effect. The morale of right-wing bloggers, conservative talk show hosts, Fox, and Republican politicians will temporarily improve. However, Congressional Republicans were never going to defy President Bush and shut down the war anyway.
Petraeus isn't having that much of an effect in Iraq. He won't have much of an effect in the United States either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Why is it so impossible for you to even imagine that General Petraeus may just report his findings, based on his experience?
And why are you so invested in discrediting him before he even testifies?
It's been obvious that Petraeus is engaged in a sales pitch ever since he did the Hugh Hewitt interview.
I don't see where I'm trying to discredit him. If I wanted to discredit Petraeus, I would argue that he's an Ollie North with four stars. Instead, I'm hypothesizing that his aims are limited to making people like you feel good about yourselves.
Why is he an Ollie North with 4 stars? How could you make that argumet without lying?
Why is him reporting his observations and findings a sales pitch, and what you are doing is simply some demented form of "truth telling"? At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that, like Sen. Reid, you do not care what he says, you will disagree with any assessment other than the one you have already proclaimed. Heaven forbid that he have a few decades worth of experience and knowledge in matter military, etc ...
Given the amount of time you have invested in disputing a report that has yet to be issued, and yet to be testified on, to say you are not trying to discredit it is remarkable. But, with traditional meanings of words being fungible to people like you, I suppose you are about to tell us that this was all just pre-emptive dissent, the highest form of patriotism.
The "Bush/Petraeus Report" isn't exactly new news. Because the White House was nervous about Republican support for September vetos, Petraeus was inserted into American political debates in June or July. As a result, we've all had a chance to evaluate his claims for at least the last two months.
Given that both Gen. Petraeus and his critics have been pumping out a steady stream of information, people need to exercise independent judgment in evaluating the situation in Iraq.
I don't agree with either Petraeus or most critics. I believe that the surge has made the situation in Iraq worse. As a result of the surge, the Shiites are fragmenting into ever smaller factions and the Iraqi national government has almost fallen apart. These things are recipes for a big blow-up of the Shiite population that would overwhelm whatever gains Petraeus has made elsewhere. In my opinion, the surge is creating the conditions for a future disaster.
I've never supported the surge (or the war), but that doesn't mean that I revel in the war's failure. I'm being realistic. The American invasion of Iraq has been a disaster for most parties involved. Hypothesizing that the current manuevering will result in more disaster is only acknowledging the likely real-world outcome of bad policy.
You start off your response with typical perfidy. It is not some Bush/Petraeus report. The Democrats passed a law that required the White House to report to Congress, with input from a variety of people. The fact that your party required the White House to do this report, and for you to then decry the White House for compiling the report is laughable.
But, you are not the least bit invested in the failure. Right.
The Iraqis have not met a single of the 18 benchmarks we laid out, and yet this President has the audacity to ask for more patience while our troops are getting killed every day policing a civil war.
This President doesn’t listen to Congress and he doesn’t listen to the American people.
The only way this war is going to end is if Congress finds the courage and will to do the right thing and mandate a change in our policy in Iraq.
How can the Congress mandate a change in an exclusively Executive function, todd? I will give you a hint, they can vote to defund the war. Have at it.
Congress can do a lot more than that, JD. Apparently, Con Law was a LONG time ago for you
Can they control the military? Effectuate foreign policy? Can they bring the troops home, or redeploy them?
Yes, they can do those things, but are hamstrung by the lack of majorities. Congress can make financial decisions regarding the deployment of US troops. Seems you forgot American history too. The Founders didn't like Kings and their wars. It's why Jefferson went to Congress to deal with the Barbary pirates
"It's why Jefferson went to Congress to deal with the Barbary pirates..."
Honest to God, timmy, your ignorance is fucking mind-boggling sometimes.
B Moe
"President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
"President Jefferson was tenuously convinced by Eaton that Hamet, the exiled brother of Tripoli's leader, Bashaw Yussef Karamanli could lead a revolt against the Bashaw. Jefferson gave Eaton little resources and maintained deniability about the whole event should the revolt fail. Thus, the first covert operation and first example of U.S. sponsored regime change were set into motion."
http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/history/fr/pirateCoast.htm
Just for starters. If you need more, let me know.
B Moe
Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
War was declared against us and the President went to Congress, which authorized war measures and negotiated a treaty.
The Second Barbary War featured a Congressional decree. "[T]he US Congress authorized deployment of naval power against Algiers" by passing legislation detailing what ships were to be outfitted and sent.
If you think the Founders, intellectual and spiritual veterans of the terrible English Civil War and the reign of Cromwell didn't envision an active legislative role int he conduct of war, then you return to engineering texts and leave the history for historians (and JD). During the Revolution, no one even used a Chief Executive. Congress managed the war (sometimes well and often not) from Philadelphia! They didn't need a President to win that fight, but you think they disdained Congress when it came to little wars like this?
That's a late 20th century understanding and would be unrecognizable to anyone pre-1941 (hell, pre-Korean war).
But, the cursing is always nice...
Jefferson sent the frigates and informed Congress. Not send frigates after asking Congress.
You do understand the difference between ask and inform? He asked Congress for money, and maybe a symbolic resolution of support, but the decision was his.
As for the bit about Congress and the Revolution, you are aware there was no Constitution then, I hope, so I assume that was more disingenuous than ignorant.
It may shock to you, that there were Founders involved in the Revolution and the Constitution was a product of those men's beliefs and experiences (and not delivered from on high). The distinctions between what they believe re: the primacy of the legislative over the executive branch could be lost on you, accostomed as you to hearing the "co-equal branch" rhetoric from you own party). Congress is the voice of the people and is and was supposed to be intimately involved in all decisions.
In other words, what you don't know about the Constitution and its history can fill the ocean on which the frigates sailed.
Post a Comment