Damning With Faint Praise: The Patraeus Report

[Darth Rotor]

I imagine a veritable firestorm of discussion will accompany the recent testimony of General Patraeus before Congress recently.

I listened to almost all of it, on C Span, (I was also working) and missed some due to grandstanding of the 9-11 remembrance day crowd, and had two points to share.

Most of what I was listening for was in what the General did NOT say. His report is using more recent metrics than a couple of previous drafts, and the GAO report, which colors (by the delta in either five of nine weeks) how one characterizes trends.

What he didn't do was point to the fall as typically being a rather bloody time in each of the last three years, and the fall approaches us. So, what some took as optimism looked to me like a combination of guarded optimism and an exercise left to the reader, since he did not, and I listened for this hard, he did not prognosticate that these trend lines would keep trending down.

The other thing he didn't say, however, was the most important.

That the surge will, when complete, have lasted about a year. His drawdown plan reduces by next summer the troop levels to what they were at the end of 2006.

Is that progress? For people being deployed, probably not.

His remarks, without saying it explicitly, points to something else that Congress will hopefully confront: if you want tangible political results, you will need to be in this for the long haul. If the security that allows meaningful political progress in Iraq is to be achieved, he just told Congress that there will be as many troops in Iraq in July 2008 as there were in July of 2006.

One of the Congressmen brought up the cost, and the projected cost from the Budget Office, of another 600 billion dollars based on 4-5 years more of this, and he asked the General, but it seemed to me he was asking the President and the American people: "Will it have been worth it?"

The reply from the General and Ambassador Crocker told me that the Bush Administration intends to go to its terminal day with over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and to be stubbornly attempting to transform Iraq until the torch is passed.

Will Congress keep funding this?

There are a few more days of this testimony, but I won't be able to see it until well after the fact.

1. "The Surge" (regardless of how it was sold) is a year long effort.

2. President Bush intends to will this war to his successor, in whichever party.

What will Congress do now?

DR

[Katana]

Will it have been worth it?

In terms of monetary costs and lives lost?

That really is the question.

How will we ever know?

What does the future hold that could tell us?

Such a simple question, yet one so breath-takingly hard to answer.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Katana

Will it have been worth it?

In terms of monetary costs and lives lost?

That really is the question.

How will we ever know?

What does the future hold that could tell us?

Such a simple question, yet one so breath-takingly hard to answer.

The war itself or prolonging it for 4 or 5 more years?

I think the answer to both questions is no, although I am almost certian about the former, less so about the latter.

The war can hardly result in anything significantly enough better than the staus quo ante to be worth the incredible cost. We had been containing Saddam at a cost of about 1.5 billion per year. We could have done that for over a century before we approached the costs already incurred. Desert Fox worked much better than the intelligence community realized, effectively ending Saddam's WMD programs. UN Inspections were actually working, although the neocons refused to believe that. Thus, it is already a strategic failure. Still, some failures are worse than others.

Now I think we need to let Iraqis sort this all out among themselves. Even if the resulting state is not to our liking, we will be able to deter it at less cost than continuing this failure.

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Now I think we need to let Iraqis sort this all out among themselves.

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" involves the deaths of millions?

[Tumblehome]

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" involves the deaths of millions?

Like the American Civil War? The general consensus seems to be that that was worth it.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Originally Posted by Tumblehome

Like the American Civil War? The general consensus seems to be that that was worth it.

And which third party invaded the US, thus triggering the civil war?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" involves the deaths of millions?

That would be a tragedy, but as long as Americans aren't doing the killing, it isn't primarily our fault. Put it down to religious and ethnic hatred. Besides, the Iraqis want us to leave. A majority support attacks on US troops. It is not possible to defend the very people who are attacking you.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Besides, the Iraqis want us to leave.

It seems to be almost common knowledge that the Iraqis was the US out, but I'm curious who the "Iraqis" are in this case.

- The Iraqi government? I doubt it. They know how screwed they are when the US pulls out.
- The Shia? - they outnumber the Sunni, so it's likely they'll get the lion's share of whatever is left. Not to mention Iran will have their back.
- The Sunni? - Maybe peeved at the US for ruining their party? Think they can take care of themselves?
- The general public? - Is a "general public" distinguishable from the previous 2 groups?

Iraq is pretty much doomed to their own devices.

[Puppycow]

Both conservative George Will and liberal Eugene Robinson rightly point out that the surge has failed according to Petraeus' and Bush's own criteria.

Originally Posted by Will

Before Gen. David Petraeus's report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq's Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making some hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that the surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus's standards of success.

Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America's hands.

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?

Many of those who insist that the surge is a harbinger of U.S. victory in Iraq are making the same mistake they made in 1991 when they urged an advance on Baghdad, and in 2003 when they underestimated the challenge of building democracy there. The mistake is exaggerating the relevance of U.S. military power to achieve political progress in a society riven by ethnic and sectarian hatreds. America's military leaders, who are professional realists, do not make this mistake.

Originally Posted by Robinson

The next six months in Iraq are crucial -- and always will be. That noise you heard yesterday on Capitol Hill was the can being kicked further down the road leading to January 2009, when George W. Bush gets to hand off his Iraq fiasco to somebody else.

It's clear by now that playing for time is the real White House strategy for Iraq. Everything else is tactical maneuver and rhetorical legerdemain -- nothing up my sleeve -- with which the administration is buying time, roughly in six-month increments.

. . .

One funny thing about the improved security situation that Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker described: Iraqis don't seem to have noticed.

In a poll of Iraqis commissioned by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese network NHK -- released yesterday before Petraeus's testimony -- 31 percent of Iraqis said security in their local areas had worsened over the past six months, as opposed to just 24 percent who said it had improved. A full 61 percent said security had worsened in the country overall, against only 11 percent who said it had gotten better. Only 22 percent said things in general were going well in Iraq (down from 44 percent in November 2005), and just 23 percent thought things would get better over the coming year (as opposed to 69 percent in 2005).

Some 63 percent of Iraqis polled said the U.S. invasion was wrong, 47 percent said that coalition forces "should leave now" and 57 percent said attacks on U.S. forces were "acceptable."

Never mind what the Iraqis think. On with the new new strategy, which is to bypass the national government and work from the bottom up, making deals with local power brokers. That should be good for, what, another six months?

[Tumblehome]

Originally Posted by bozothedeathmachine

And which third party invaded the US, thus triggering the civil war?

Well, the end result doesn't depend on how it starts. Things would get settled one way or the other. And it didn't take a third party for the U.S. to settle its dispute. They did it on their own. Maybe that's why it's lasted for so long.

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

That would be a tragedy, but as long as Americans aren't doing the killing, it isn't primarily our fault. Put it down to religious and ethnic hatred. Besides, the Iraqis want us to leave. A majority support attacks on US troops. It is not possible to defend the very people who are attacking you.

Whether you agree with the orgional invasion or not, it is a fact. Do you not believe that the U.S. bears some responsibility of the future of those people. Is it correct for the U.S. to roll in, cause a huge mess, throw up it's hands a few years later, leave, and let the genocide roll?

[Daylight]

Darth

The main, and even more important, thing you missed, not one speaker mentioned the “War on Terror”. If we are not fighting the “war on terror” over there, there’s no reason for us to be there.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Tumblehome

And it didn't take a third party for the U.S. to settle its dispute. They did it on their own. Maybe that's why it's lasted for so long.

France was showing a willingness to join the Confederate cause, only their hapless defeat in Mexico ended those ambitions. And Britain built several warships for the Confederacy, they liked that Confederate cotton. But then the British grain crop came up short, and suddenly the British needed US wheat more than CSA cotton. And the Emancipation Proclamation made it clear to the British public that to join the Confederacy would mean fighting for slavery.

[Bikewer]

Regarding the much-touted "progress" in the Anbar province.... The administration has been going on for some weeks now about the previously-nasty Sunni in this area uniting with our forces against the Al Qaeda In Iraq group.
However, an analyst I just listened to indicates this may be less of a good thing than appears at first blush.
The Sunni are still firmly convinced of their "right" to govern, and in using US assistance to oust the Shia-leaning Al Qaeda fighters, they can now concentrate (with the aid of equipment and munitions given them by us...) on returning to the effort to drive their "allies of the moment" out of the country.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Daylight

Darth

The main, and even more important, thing you missed, not one speaker mentioned the “War on Terror”. If we are not fighting the “war on terror” over there, there’s no reason for us to be there.

You are wrong. I heard quite clearly that one of the Congressman made that precise complaint, so I could not have missed it. What you missed is that this was not testimony on 'The War On Terror' but rather the mission in Iraq. (FWIW: As far as I am concerned, the Iraq War was, if intended to be a step in the War on Terror begun in Afghanistan, a profound strategic error, but that wasn't what the topic of the brief was.) Go move the goal posts somewhere else, thanks.

General Patraeus, as he pointed out again and again to Congressmen, is not the National Command authority, and as such he confined his testimony to his assigned mission.

I think I counted five different questioners that asked him geo-strategic questions. In each case he pointed out what his mission is, and that such questions were better directed to Admiral Fallon (US CENTCOM commander) and the JCS, Sec Def, and the NCA. No matter, such Congressional hearings are often seen as a chance to shoot the messenger. A few rounds were sent his way. I just wish I could listen to the rest of the testimony and questions from both committees, but alas am not in a position to do so.

His mission is the problem in Iraq, regardless of how else it is related to US policy, and that is what he briefed. He was IMO 100% correct to confine his remarks to his lane, to his mission, and would have been guilty of a gross foul of addressing regional issues (CENTCOM's and States lanes) or higher level strategic matters. Ambassador Crocker had a bit more latitude as a member of State and due to his diplomatic role, but again, was best served by staying in his lane.

General Patraeus' comments in Iranian involvement and assistance to various militias and terror groups were, if you watched the whole testimony yesterday, confined to their actions and impacts in Iraq.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Regarding the much-touted "progress" in the Anbar province.... The administration has been going on for some weeks now about the previously-nasty Sunni in this area uniting with our forces against the Al Qaeda In Iraq group.
However, an analyst I just listened to indicates this may be less of a good thing than appears at first blush.
The Sunni are still firmly convinced of their "right" to govern, and in using US assistance to oust the Shia-leaning Al Qaeda fighters, they can now concentrate (with the aid of equipment and munitions given them by us...) on returning to the effort to drive their "allies of the moment" out of the country.

Indeed, the Sunni are on their own side.

One of the Congressmen yesterday made mention, or maybe it was a news commentator (I was in another room and listening only), of the ethnic cleansing currently going on in Iraq, and in particular in Baghdad. Newsweek recently had a piece on this, and Ralph Peters' article on that matter was a topic of discussion on this board a couple of weeks ago.

It is a point well worth examining in some depth. What is being set up by its own momentum, rather than by any American design, is a slow but steady partition, a segregation, of Iraq into blocs.

I just realized that the General made little to no mention of the Kurdish areas, other than to make some points about how well one particular mission in the Kurd area went, which makes a third major matter that he did not address yesterday.

The looming partition of Iraq as a very real outcome of our actions there, and the follow on opportunities taken by various tribes and factions, was the 800 pound gorilla in the room not acknowledged. He is operating under the guidance, as I understand it, that his mission is tied to the implicit assumption that Iraq will remain a pluralistic nation state with its borders as they were in 2002. That assumption is, much to my concern, one of many made by the administration that wished away nation building as a mission in Phases III and IV of OIF.

This does not give me a warm and fuzzy.

In response to puppycow: Will and Robinson rightly take the President and General to task on the matter of success by their own metrics, particularly if the expectation of success was a short term improvement in the political climate. If President Bush presumed that he could influence that over the course of a half a year, he was deluding himself. While General Patraeus noted "progress" neither he nor Ambassador Crocker declared success. Ambassador Crocker flatly stated "I cannot guarantee success in Iraq."

Was the Surge predicted to be a success by 15 September, and of course, what does "success" mean? Based in the remarks yesterday, that seems an inference made by many, to include people in the administration, this spring.

The General's recommendations for drawdown by next summer to the levels previous to the surge is indicative of a strategy of a deliberate counter insurgency. Too bad the denial stage in Washington lasted two and a half years.

FWIW, Ricks, in Fiasco, made the observation that counter insurgency campaigns tend to take between 9 and 11 years. (I just realized a weird irony in that assessment. Today is 9-11)

With that in mind, General Patraeus being the latest proponent of COIN in the US military, yesterday's brief was confirmation that someone in Washington has committed the US to an operation that will last into the next decade. This takes me back to my question in the OP: will Congress and the American people fund that, and will they trust their government and military with the blood and treasure to do that?

Based on recent polls, I'd say the answer to that is NO.

So, what to make of the report? I don't think the General is oblivious to American public opinion, so what assumptions is he, and his staff, making? I will hazard a guess: CENTCOM and MNCI are making the assumption that Congress will keep funding whatever troop level they ask for in the near term, and they are, and their successors, going to keep on "drawing down" troop levels at the glacial pace the General mentioned yesterday. That means that a couple of years from now, the US will still have about two divisions still in Iraq, segregated on large bases in a way similar to PSAB in Saudi Arabia up until 2003. I am not convinced the American people are interested in that use of their military.

Sending one MEU home (without replacement) in a few weeks. That's about 2,000 people. Out of 160,000, that is not a very large slice of the pie. A brigade home by Christmas, another 4000 or so, not to be replaces. What is 6/160? By July, 30/160. At that rate, 30 months until they are all home.

As to Mr Robinson's closer:

Quote:

Never mind what the Iraqis think. On with the new new strategy, which is to bypass the national government and work from the bottom up, making deals with local power brokers. That should be good for, what, another six months?

This matter was addressed, and the open question remains what degree of Federalism is appropriate to Iraq. Democracy, or at least representative government, grows best from the ground up. The top down insertion of parliamentary government was not working so well, perhaps the "ground up" method is the better approach. (It seems obvious that the Bush Team's goals is laying a bit of parliamentary democracy on Iraq. ) Put in tennis terms, always change a losing game plan, don't change a winning one. What seems to have been done over the past year is, at long last, steps toward changing a losing game plan. A bloody expensive lesson in getting it wrong/right, no doubt about it.

The General Mentioned about two million refugees (people who fled the country) and about two million "internally displaced." As percentage of the population, originally about 25,000,000, that's almost one in six people in Iraq have lost or left their homes since March of 2003. Compare the Katrina (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) refugees of 2005 as a percentage of population, and you'd have to displace ten times as many as lost their homes here to get a sense of how deep into Iraq the upheaval has reached. Putting that back together cannot be done in the short term, and the Surge can't solve that massive damage to Iraq.

DR

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You are wrong. I heard quite clearly that one of the Congressman made that precise complaint, so I could not have missed it. What you missed is that this was not testimony on 'The War On Terror' but rather the mission in Iraq. (FWIW: As far as I am concerned, the Iraq War was, if intended to be a step in the War on Terror begun in Afghanistan, a profound strategic error. ) But that wasn't what the topic of the brief was.

General Patraeus, as he pointed out again and again to Congressmen, is not the National Command authority, and as such he confined his testimony to his assigned mission.

I think I counted five different questioners that asked him geo-strategic questions. In each case he pointed out what his mission is, and that such question were better directed to Admiral Fallon (US CENTCOM commander) and the JCS, Sec Def, and the NCA. No matter, such Congressional hearings are often seen as a chance to shoot the messenger. A few rounds were sent his way. I just wish I could listen to the rest of the testimony and questions from both committees, but alas am not in a position to do so.

His mission is the problem in Iraq, regardless of how else it is related to US policy, and that is what he briefed. He was IMO 100% correct to confine his remarks to his lane, to his mission, and would have been guilty of a gross foul of addressing regional issues (CENTCOM's and States lanes) or higher level strategic matters. Ambassador Crocker had a bit more latitude as a member of State and due to his diplomatic role, but again, was best served by staying in his lane.

General Patraeus' comments in Iranian involvement and assistance to various militias and terror groups were, if you watched the whole testimony yesterday, confined to their actions and impacts in Iraq.

DR

I think Patreaus is a quietly brilliant intellectual warrior. He is a primary author of the Army and Marine Corps Counter Insurgency Manual which (correctly IMHO) asserts that an effective counter-insurgency program must be 80% political and 20% military (historians in the crowd may recognize that this premise orginated with a fellow by the name of Mao). This lesson was tragically ignored for the first 3 years of our presense in Iraq. This manual has some thought provoking statements such as "the more you protect your force, the less secure it becomes" and "the more force you use, the less effective it becomes".

Another initiative not often talked about in the MSM is current in-country programs to deal with captives. Here is an interview with Senator Lindsay Grahm (who also is a reserve USAF Jag Colonel and has served as such for short periods in Iraq).

An excerpt:

Quote:

SEN. GRAHAM: We put the detainee in school, teach them to read and write, then bring in moderate clerics who will actually sit down with the detainees and go over the Koran with them: Reading passages that the insurgents use on the streets. The clerics will say, “Here’s what they [the terrorists] say it says. Here’s what it actually says. Read it for yourself.”

We’ve also created a vocational program. We’ve established brick factories at the internment facilities, so that they can learn to make bricks, develop a skill.


SMITH: So we are educating and teaching job skills to the reconcilable.

SEN. GRAHAM: Yes, so they won’t have to go back to the fight for economic reasons. Now, we don’t know what percentage of the detainees are reconcilable. But it’s probably going to be 35 to 40 percent.


SMITH: What is the guarantor program?

SEN. GRAHAM: Alright, I’ve said that Gen. Petraeus is Pres. Bush’s U.S. Grant. But I think Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone [deputy commanding general, Multi-National Force–Iraq for Detainee Operations] may be our Lawrence of Arabia. His guarantor program is evidence to me that we are finally getting it: We’re finally understanding Iraq. His program is forward-leaning. He sees the prison system as an extension of the war: Basically taking counterinsurgency into jails. And with this many people in prison, it’s important we do that.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

That would be a tragedy, but as long as Americans aren't doing the killing, it isn't primarily our fault. Put it down to religious and ethnic hatred. Besides, the Iraqis want us to leave. A majority support attacks on US troops.

Correction: A majority say they support attacks on US troops.

Hmmm. I'm an Iraqi not fortunate enough to live in the green zone. Someone asks me if I support attacks on US troops. My thought process: "Hmmmm. If I say yes, the US troops won't come kill me. If I say no, Al Whoever or the local terrorist warlord wannabee may very well come and kill me, just like they did the guys on the next street over, leaving a sign that read 'to teach you a lesson'."

"Why, yes. Yes I do support attacks on US troops!"

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by WildCat

...And Britain built several warships for the Confederacy, they liked that Confederate cotton.

You're completely werong on motive; the Brits did it for the cash, and any sympathy for the South had completely different reasons than cotton.

Quote:

But then the British grain crop came up short, and suddenly the British needed US wheat more than CSA cotton.

Simply not so.

Quote:

And the Emancipation Proclamation made it clear to the British public that to join the Confederacy would mean fighting for slavery.

Actually, that was pretty explicitly clear to the Brits way before the Emancipation Declaration. See British publications 1860 to 1863.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I'm an Iraqi not fortunate enough to live in the green zone.

If only. It would certainly cure you of your ad-hoc-rationalizational libertarianism.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

FWIW, Ricks, in Fiasco, made the observation that counter insurgency campaigns tend to take between 9 and 11 years. (I just realized a weird irony in that assessment. Today is 9-11)

And, often does not end successfully for the occupier (Algeria, Vietnam)

10 years would put us at 2013, so the next president would have to be fully committed to it. I won't claim to be sure, but I believe that prolonging the occupation will not yield a better end state. And the presence of US troops doesn't actually do much to reduce the overall level of violence because it does not encourage the Iraqis to take the initiative in finding a political solution.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Against the back drop of someone claiming to be willing to give an honest Iraq report and for all the fake outrage the Republicans are trying to rally against the "General Betray Us" ad Moveon put out, I saw an event which was boringly choreographed complete with a Bush photo op following the report, on 9/11 (gee what a coincidence ). How is anyone supposed to believe this was a meaningful report? Do you find yourself taking it seriously given the production factor with graphs to show us the important data and the obvious fact you heard nothing you couldn't have guessed the day before the report?

Call me skeptical that this was even a real report.

Information I get on Democracy Now is a report. There are interviews of people who are living among the Iraqis, who wrote books like Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone which exposed the full extent of the mistakes Bush made not just in failing to control the looting and disbanding the Baathist military after the initial invasion, but also of the utter incompetence of the team he sent to rebuild the Iraq government, a team that included 20 year olds whose only qualification was being born again, and Poet & Novelist Sinan Antoon on the U.S. Destruction of the Iraqi State, His Latest Novel and the Sad Statement that Iraq Was Better Under Saddam Hussein. I watch Petraeus and it just looked sooo staged. Did you really feel you were getting an update? Were you being informed? Was there anything said you couldn't have guessed would be said?


This is what DN had on this morning on their coverage of Iraq: September 11th, 2007, EXCLUSIVE Report From Iraq: U.S. Fueling Sectarian Civil War in Anbar by Funding Former Insurgents to Fight Al Qaeda

Quote:

When Gen. David Petraeus spoke of success stories in Iraq, he largely focused on the situation in Anbar province where former Sunni insurgents are now fighting Al Qaeda alongside U.S. troops. In a U.S. broadcast exclusive, we air a report from Anbar by independent filmmaker Rick Rowley that exposes how the U.S. is fueling sectarian civil war in Iraq by funding the former Sunni insurgents.

And last week it was, September 5th, 2007, The Fight for Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror: ACLU Head Anthony Romero on Civilian Killings in Iraq, Domestic Spying, Torture, John Walker Lindh and More

Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union is making public nearly ten thousand pages of documents chronicling civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The files include courts martial proceedings and military investigations regarding the possible wrongful death of civilians. The ACLU obtained the records from the Department of the Army after filing a Freedom of Information Act request over a year ago. But the Department of Defense has so far refused to comply with the FOIA request. The ACLU is now filing a lawsuit demanding the Pentagon release the documents.

And a couple weeks back it was, August 21st, 2007, "Iraq Does Not Exist Anymore": Journalist Nir Rosen on How the U.S. Invasion of Iraq Has Led to Ethnic Cleansing, a Worsening Refugee Crisis and the Destabilization of the Middle East

Quote:

Nir Rosen is an independent journalist and the author of "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq." He is a fellow at the New America Foundation and has reported extensively from Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. [includes rush transcript]

Earlier this year Rosen wrote a cover story for the New York Time Sunday Magazine called "The Flight from Iraq." He estimated that up to 50,000 Iraqis were leaving their homes each month.

uly 19th, 2007
Despite Reports Showing Nearly Half of Foreign Militants in Iraq Are Saudi, White House and Lawmakers Keeping Sights on Iran

Quote:

The Los Angeles Times is reporting nearly half of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops in Iraq have come from Saudi Arabia – one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East. U.S. officials have so far refused to publicly criticize Saudi Arabia's role in Iraq, focusing instead on Iran. We go to Baghdad to speak to L.A. Times correspondent Ned Parker. We’re also joined by Toby Jones, a former Persian Gulf analyst with the International Crisis Group and history professor at Rutgers University. [includes rush transcript]

* Ned Parker. Staff writer with the Los Angeles Times, reporting from Baghdad.

* Toby Jones. Persian Gulf analyst with the International Crisis Group from 2004-2006. He is completing a fellowship at Swarthmore College and will be teaching history at Rutgers University this fall.

Did Patraeus tell us any of these things in his report:
July 12th, 2007, "If Soldiers Came From Another Country And Did This To My Family, I Would Be An Insurgent Too” – War Vet Describes Iraq House Raid?
Or this, July 12th, 2007, Iraq War Vets Describe "Brutal Techniques" Used by U.S. Military Against Iraqi Civilians?
Or this, July 12th, 2007, The Other War: Iraq Veterans Speak Out on Shocking Accounts of Attacks on Iraqi Civilians?
Did he tell us they were addressing these problems and what they planned to do about them? Did Patraeus even acknowledge such problems were occurring?


I did think Hilary's speech was good. I thought Boxer's question, "Can you really say it will be worth the tremendous cost?" was good. Did Patraeus answer anything unexpected to that question? Patraeus claims the surge is working but defines success in terms of the body count, not in terms of actual measures of progress in Iraq.

And even the Democrats were completely silent on the oil problem. No one mentioned anything about
July 6th, 2007, Founder of Iraq Oil Workers Union Rejects U.S.-Backed Oil Law as "Robbery"

Quote:

As the Iraqi cabinet approves part of a controversial oil law, we speak with Faleh Abood Umara, the general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in Iraq. He calls on Iraqi lawmakers to reject the legislation. We also speak with Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union and the first woman to head a national union in Iraq.

At least not while I was watching.


Bush has turned every event into a photo op, a staged town meeting, an uninformative report with some meaningless redundant information. But the progress by the Iraqi government? Not much to say. The growing readiness of the Iraqi troops and police? Lipstick on a flat graph. How the real problems like unemployment, corruption, or basic services are being addressed? Not that I heard. It was not a real report, a real questioning. It was posturing, propaganda and a staged prelude to a Bush photo op today pretending to be gathering the facts to make all his 'decisions' which everyone knows were made long before anything Bush learned in the last couple days from his faked 'fact finding tasks'.

Want to know if the surge is accomplishing anything? If so you would likely have been disappointed if you thought this report was supposed to inform you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" involves the deaths of millions?

This is the typical argument, we stay and the civil war drags on, we leave and there are all these dire predictions and all the while only a few people are really informed of the problems, the fact Bush refuses to address the real problems with real solutions. Everyone wrings their hands and says all we can do is stay or leave.

That is a lie.

We can quit trying to get a 70% piece of the oil reserves for private American and British oil companies, we can follow the money and take it back from those who gained it via corruption, we can fire Haliburton and other Bush crony companies and hire Iraqis to rebuild their country, and with the money that will save we can actually rebuild the infrastructure. We can build real hospitals and actually fund their operations so instead of an empty non-functioning Laura Bush maternity hospital we actually provide maternity care for these people. (Afghanistan has THE HIGHEST maternity death rate in the world and we built them a hospital they have no means to run*.) We could provide all sorts of medical services just with our military mobile units alone. The critically ill and injured could be treated on ready functioning hospital ships. And, "Mr Bush, tear down that permanent military base."

I could type another page about what we could do besides staying or leaving. I have been typing this same stuff on these forums for years and a few people are also suggesting these answers. We just need more people to repeat the same things. The snowball hasn't gotten much bigger yet. But I still think it can.



*MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN, by Catherine Gund, Sedika Mojadidi and Jenny Raskin, February 13, 2007

Quote:

Nearly one in seven Afghan women die in childbirth. MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN introduces the women behind these devastating statistics. Afghan American filmmaker Sedika Mojadidi examines her father's works as an OB/GYN as he struggles to make a difference, first at Kabul's recently renamed Laura Bush Maternity Ward and then in an isolated provincial hospital, where patients often travel for several days to get treatment.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Katana

Will it have been worth it?

In terms of monetary costs and lives lost?

That really is the question.

How will we ever know?

What does the future hold that could tell us?

Such a simple question, yet one so breath-takingly hard to answer.

In fact, that is the easiest question to answer. The number of lives lost is much bigger than would otherwise have been the case, the money spent is going to be 1 or 2 trillion dollars, ( I like the way it so hard to pin down a trillion), to achieve absolutely nothing.

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

and with the money that will save we can actually rebuild the infrastructure.

Who will rebuild the infrastrutcure? It'll have to be the Iraqis, because no foreign companies would without U.S. protection. Do you think the Iraqi sectarian violence would magically dissapear after U.S. troops left? I'm sure that if we left, all we would have to do is fork over a few billion to Iraq, and everybody would drop thier weapons and grievances and turn to rebuilding the nation. I wish the world worked that way.

Quote:

We can build real hospitals and actually fund their operations so instead of an empty non-functioning Laura Bush maternity hospital we actually provide maternity care for these people. (Afghanistan has THE HIGHEST maternity death rate in the world and we built them a hospital they have no means to run*.) We could provide all sorts of medical services just with our military mobile units alone.

Great idea. I'm sure insurgents would leave our military medical people alone if we didn't protect them.

Quote:

The critically ill and injured could be treated on ready functioning hospital ships. And, "Mr Bush, tear down that permanent military base."

another fantastic idea. I'm sure our two hospital ships with a grand total of 1000 bed space per ship would be plenty to handle all the critically ill and injured from an Iraqi civil war. How would these patients get to the hospital ships?

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" involves the deaths of millions?

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" saves millions of lives?

It is just as easy to imagine scenarios where that is true as to imagine scenarios where it isn't true. The question is what will happen if the US gradually withdraws from Iraq using a strategy similar to the one put forth in by the Iraq Study Group and what will happen if the US continues down the path it is on now.

Your comments suggest you think things will be better if the US continues to do what it is doing. Everyday as a result of that strategy thousands more Iraqis are displaced from their homes, more American soldiers are killed, more Iraqi civilians are killed, and more weapons are provided to different Iraqi factions. Every day the number of people who have reasons to hate the US increases. And every day no progress is made toward any kind of political solution.

Of course, this is not all bad from the Bushco perspective. Every day this fiasco goes on is another day they can avoid admitting the depths of their colossally corrupt and inept handling of the war, every day is another opportunity to enrich their corporate cronies with lucrative contracts and every day is another day to fire up their political base with pro-war sloganeering.

But apparently you see benefits beyond the narrow self serving ones that seem to be driving Bush administration policy. What are those benefits? Clearly, there is no indication that the American occupation is making Iraqis better off right now, but perhaps you see a time in the distant future when after years and years of American occupation the hearts and minds of the various Iraqi factions will have been won over and they will live in peace and harmony with each other. Is there any information that suggests that the American led occupation is having the effect of imparting peace and harmony?

From the beginning the reconstruction and the political stabilization of Iraq were Iraq problems that needed Iraqis to solve them. But this reality didn't fit with the need of the Bush administration for ego gratification or their desire to create opportunities for corporate cronies. So they embarked on a policy whereby the US government did what Iraqis needed to be doing and then after the US government had created the enormous disaster that is Iraq today the Bush administration used its own failures as an excuse to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

Kind of brilliant in an evil sort of way, but why are there people left who find anything that the Bushco spinmeisters put out about Iraq credible? Isn't five years of half truths, lies, failed predictions, and massive human tragedy enough to have eliminated the last vestiges of credibility from the sorry band of hucksters and incompetents that has been the Bush administration? The only thing clear about this whole sad mess is that Bushco will continue to serve their own narrow interests regardless of the damage done to the US and Iraq.

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by davefoc

And what if letting the "Iraqis sort this all out among themselves" saves millions of lives?

It is just as easy to imagine scenarios where that is true as to imagine scenarios where it isn't true. The question is what will happen if the US gradually withdraws from Iraq using a strategy similar to the one put forth in by the Iraq Study Group and what will happen if the US continues down the path it is on now.

You seem to be confused about the path the US is going down now. You also have misinterpreted the motivations for posting that question. It was directed at the "we should all leave Iraq NOW" folks, and not those arguing for an approach suggested by the Iraq Study group that you mentioned.

Quote:

But apparently you see benefits beyond the narrow self serving ones that seem to be driving Bush administration policy.

Boy you do one hell of a lot of generalzation about my beliefs and point of view. On what do you base this?

Quote:

From the beginning the reconstruction and the political stabilization of Iraq were Iraq problems that needed Iraqis to solve them.

agreed, but they haven't. What now batman?

Quote:

But this reality didn't fit with the need of the Bush administration for ego gratification or their desire to create opportunities for corporate cronies. So they embarked on a policy whereby the US government did what Iraqis needed to be doing and then after the US government had created the enormous disaster that is Iraq today the Bush administration used its own failures as an excuse to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

You have cleverly focused on the reasons and motivations that brought us into Iraq. But whether you agree with those or not, you have to fast forward your mind 4 years to the current situation--one hell of a mess that is looking for excuses to degenerate into a slaughter. Your hatred of Bush is not helpful to solving the current problem. The fight you are looking for will take place in history books.

Quote:

Kind of brilliant in an evil sort of way, but why are there people left who find anything that the Bushco spinmeisters put out about Iraq credible?

yeah, Gen "Betray Us" right?

Quote:

Isn't five years of half truths, lies, failed predictions, and massive human tragedy enough to have eliminated the last vestiges of credibility from the sorry band of hucksters and incompetents that has been the Bush administration? The only thing clear about this whole sad mess is that Bushco will continue to serve their own narrow interests regardless of the damage done to the US and Iraq.

A lot of hatred and critiscm here, and very little about how to solve the problem. Sorry, as much as you would like it, if Bush keeled over from a heart attack tonight, the problem in Iraq would still be there tomorrow. If we had a special election tonight and replaced the entire administration overnight, the problem in Iraq would still exist.

[Daylight]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You are wrong. I heard quite clearly that one of the Congressman made that precise complaint, so I could not have missed it. What you missed is that this was not testimony on 'The War On Terror' but rather the mission in Iraq. (FWIW: As far as I am concerned, the Iraq War was, if intended to be a step in the War on Terror begun in Afghanistan, a profound strategic error, but that wasn't what the topic of the brief was.) Go move the goal posts somewhere else, thanks.

General Patraeus, as he pointed out again and again to Congressmen, is not the National Command authority, and as such he confined his testimony to his assigned mission.

I think I counted five different questioners that asked him geo-strategic questions. In each case he pointed out what his mission is, and that such questions were better directed to Admiral Fallon (US CENTCOM commander) and the JCS, Sec Def, and the NCA. No matter, such Congressional hearings are often seen as a chance to shoot the messenger. A few rounds were sent his way. I just wish I could listen to the rest of the testimony and questions from both committees, but alas am not in a position to do so.

His mission is the problem in Iraq, regardless of how else it is related to US policy, and that is what he briefed. He was IMO 100% correct to confine his remarks to his lane, to his mission, and would have been guilty of a gross foul of addressing regional issues (CENTCOM's and States lanes) or higher level strategic matters. Ambassador Crocker had a bit more latitude as a member of State and due to his diplomatic role, but again, was best served by staying in his lane.

General Patraeus' comments in Iranian involvement and assistance to various militias and terror groups were, if you watched the whole testimony yesterday, confined to their actions and impacts in Iraq.

DR

Darth

I’m talking about the people there to testify.

General Patraeus job number one is to fight the 911 terrorists aka “War on Terror”. That is what we, the American people, were told why we invaded (along with the other 30+ lies by Bush and friends).

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by Daylight

Darth

I’m talking about the people there to testify.

General Patraeus job number one is to fight the 911 terrorists aka “War on Terror”. That is what we, the American people, were told why we invaded (along with the other 30+ lies by Bush and friends).

Actually Patraeus area of responsibility begins and ends at the Iraqi border.

One could argue as to whether the Iraqi struggle is part of the "War on Terror", but what is not for debate is the fact that the war on terror extends far beyond the Iraqi frontier.

ETA: *hint: look up "chain of command"

[davefoc]

Thank you for your responses stanleywinthrop,

I think that there is some validity to your criticisms of me. Some of my thoughts about what you said:

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

You seem to be confused about the path the US is going down now.

Perhaps I am. I see the surge as pretty much just more of the same except with a few more troops. I do agree though that the Bush administration has made some low key attempts to change direction a bit including meetings with some of Iraq's neighbors as recommended by the ISG.

Quote:

You also have misinterpreted the motivations for posting that question. It was directed at the "we should all leave Iraq NOW" folks, and not those arguing for an approach suggested by the Iraq Study group that you mentioned.

I think that there are very few people in the get out immediately group. It is probably not possible logistically and even if it were most people would like to see if there wasn't some useful role the US could play as Iraq transitions to Iraqi control. I think the characterization of the opposition to staying the course as generally favoring immediate withdrawal is just a canard put forth by the we want to keep doing the same thing crowd to illegitimately characterize the people that are opposed to their policies.

Quote:

Boy you do one hell of a lot of generalzation about my beliefs and point of view. On what do you base this?

My generalizations of what you believe were based on your posts in this thread and your use of what I considered to be bogus argument for staying the course. If I misunderstood what your beliefs were I am sorry.

Quote:

agreed, but they haven't. What now batman?
You have cleverly focused on the reasons and motivations that brought us into Iraq. But whether you agree with those or not, you have to fast forward your mind 4 years to the current situation--one hell of a mess that is looking for excuses to degenerate into a slaughter. Your hatred of Bush is not helpful to solving the current problem. The fight you are looking for will take place in history books.

yeah, Gen "Betray Us" right?

Many small issues here, none of which might be of much general interest:
1. hatred of Bush - I don't generally think that I hate Bush but by some definitions I think that is a somewhat fair characterization. I think Bush (probably driven mostly by Cheney) has used the war to corruptly benefit cronies (a very high crime in my mind), I think Bush has routinely used the government for the benefit of his partisan cronies in way that suggests that he sees the US assets as his own personal ones. I think that Bush attempted to undermine the rule of law and the very fabric of our democracy with the firing of the US attorneys. I think Bush has routinely engaged in highly corrupt behavior in the formulation of domestic policy including things like the medicare drug bill. But I don't have the deep emotional dislike of Bush that I would reserve the use of the word hate for. I would hate somebody that harmed my daughters. I don't feel like that about Bush.

2. Past doesn't matter, regardless of how we got here, we're in a mess now and we need to deal with that problem.

I agree, except that the people who got us in to this mess are still in charge and I think it is reasonable to be very skeptical of people who have such a deeply vested interest in trying to validate their previous decisions. I think it is particularly reasonable to be skeptical of those people when they do not show signs of introspection or objectivity about their past actions.

3. General "Betray US". Mostly, I thought that campaign was counterproductive and childish. I do think that it is not without intellectual content though. Petraeus has been presented as an independent judge of what is going on and what path the US should follow. But is he? He didn't present a balanced picture. His presentation was just a pitch that presented the evidence that most favored the administration's view. If it had been made clear that he was just another administration pitch man then I think he should be cut some slack. That's his job and he was doing it in the best way he could. But he needs to make clear that he is functioning as a paid advocate and not as an independent citizen speaking the truth as he best knows it to his fellow citizens if he is not to be judged harshly for acting like a paid shill.

Quote:

A lot of hatred and critiscm here, and very little about how to solve the problem. Sorry, as much as you would like it, if Bush keeled over from a heart attack tonight, the problem in Iraq would still be there tomorrow. If we had a special election tonight and replaced the entire administration overnight, the problem in Iraq would still exist.

No one knows exactly what would happen with a new administration. I think things would get better but I concede that they might get worse. As to how to solve the problem, I thought Skeptigirl made some reasonable suggestions. In general, I think it has been essential for awhile that the US take steps to make it clear that its stay is not open ended and to begin to schedule transition dates for US forces from referees in a civil war to gradually more limited roles until the US presence ends. I think the thing standing in the way of that are the Cheney/neocon dreams about the long term presence of the US in Iraq to protect US oil interests and to protect Israel and the fear the Bush administration has of doing anything that begins to admit what a monumental disaster they have created.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

Who will rebuild the infrastrutcure? It'll have to be the Iraqis, because no foreign companies would without U.S. protection. Do you think the Iraqi sectarian violence would magically dissapear after U.S. troops left? I'm sure that if we left, all we would have to do is fork over a few billion to Iraq, and everybody would drop thier weapons and grievances and turn to rebuilding the nation. I wish the world worked that way.


Great idea. I'm sure insurgents would leave our military medical people alone if we didn't protect them.

another fantastic idea. I'm sure our two hospital ships with a grand total of 1000 bed space per ship would be plenty to handle all the critically ill and injured from an Iraqi civil war. How would these patients get to the hospital ships?


[And I add this quote from your reply to Davefoc]A lot of hatred and critiscm here, and very little about how to solve the problem. Sorry, as much as you would like it, if Bush keeled over from a heart attack tonight, the problem in Iraq would still be there tomorrow. If we had a special election tonight and replaced the entire administration overnight, the problem in Iraq would still exist.

So let me address the last paragrapht first. I don't recall reading anything earthshaking in your suggestions for problem solving or did I miss something? I read your posts as saying all we can do is stay and continue doing what we know hasn't worked. And of course the mess will be there after Bush leaves. He has no plan and can't see the massive mistakes he has made so it is unlikely he will correct any of them before he leaves office.

As to the rest of your blind reaction to my post, let's start with the principle I noted above. If your plan doesn't work, it makes no sense to just continue it. What fear of change makes people think that continuing a failed plan is better than trying an unknown plan? Bush and his propaganda machine have convinced everyone there is only staying or going. That machine covers up the mistakes. But it isn't the cover up of failure that Bush wants. It's cover up of the goals he and the NeoCons have which they don't want to give up. If people knew the goal was big oil contracts, they might not send their kids to die for this. And Bush's goals are not preventing terrorist attacks in the US. If Bush wanted to do that we wouldn't have a wide open southern border and there would have been proper safety measures addressing cargo container ships and a number of other gaps in our country's armor.

As to who would rebuild Iraq? Iraqis. What is so hard about that? If you were better informed you would know about the problem of unemployment in Iraq and the foreign contractors Bush brought in who in turn brought in cheap foreign labor to take jobs Iraqis could have done except then the foreign contractors' massive profit margins would have been less.

Our military could stay until these problems were addressed and then I guarantee you half the insurgency would end right there. What makes you think I said we should leave and....? I said leaving and staying were not the only things that could be done.

The other half of the problem is more complicated. We have essentially armed all sides, Sunnis and Shiites alike. And we've done little to ease ethnic tensions. But ethnic tensions are rooted in other troubles and if people have a decent life, education for their kids, health care, hope, then ethnic tension subsides. We won't know until the other problems are addressed how much of a civil war will be left unless we address the other problems.

As to the medical care, I don't understand your gripe. I'm just saying start providing some health care for these people. I am not saying my suggestions are the only ones or even the right ones. But right now, we aren't doing much of anything for these people except occupying their country and probably killing as many people as we might be preventing someone else from killing.

[stanleywinthrop]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Thank you for your responses stanleywinthrop,

I think that there is some validity to your criticisms of me. Some of my thoughts about what you said:



Perhaps I am. I see the surge as pretty much just more of the same except with a few more troops. I do agree though that the Bush administration has made some low key attempts to change direction a bit including meetings with some of Iraq's neighbors as recommended by the ISG.

You and the majority of the public have missed some key events in U.S. policy in regard to Iraq. Not that I hold this against you, the general public is unschooled when it comes to military tactics and apropros of the current discusssion--counter-insurgency tactics. However, and I'll agree this is quite tragic, the Bush administration (specifically Rumsfeld) was largely ignorant of it as well. This changed with Rumsfeld's departure and the appointment of Patreaus. As I have pointed out elsewhere Patreaus is the primary author of the new counter-insurgency manual. This strategy is typically boiled down to a few soundbites by the MSM, and it's subtleties are largely lost on the general public. I invite you to read this manual and learn about what U.S. troops are actually doing in Iraq. Should you read this manual and would like to discuss its contents, I would be delighted to oblige. But trust me, as a person speaking from personal experience, things are being done quite differently today than 3 years or even 10 months ago in Iraq. There is a city called Ramadi that in 2005 a short walk without a platoon of marines or soldiers could pretty much guarantee death, today can americans can walk about the city without fear of being shot at. Sure you'll say its one city, but an entire province (Al Anbar) has changed like that. Sure it's one province, but many experts are saying this movement is spreading to the rest of the country.

Quote:

Many small issues here, none of which might be of much general interest:
1. hatred of Bush - I don't generally think that I hate Bush but by some definitions I think that is a somewhat fair characterization. I think Bush (probably driven mostly by Cheney) has used the war to corruptly benefit cronies (a very high crime in my mind), I think Bush has routinely used the government for the benefit of his partisan cronies in way that suggests that he sees the US assets as his own personal ones. I think that Bush attempted to undermine the rule of law and the very fabric of our democracy with the firing of the US attorneys.

sorry to interupt, but just to keep the facts straight, U.S. attornies serve at the president's pleasure. This means that if Bush doesn't like one's choice of tie he can dismiss him. That's the law.

Quote:

I think Bush has routinely engaged in highly corrupt behavior in the formulation of domestic policy including things like the medicare drug bill. But I don't have the deep emotional dislike of Bush that I would reserve the use of the word hate for. I would hate somebody that harmed my daughters. I don't feel like that about Bush.

I'm not going to defend bush even against your somewhat fiddling of the facts here, the fact remains that Bush's motivations for going into Iraq, right or wrong is yesterday's box score. The history books are where this arguement will be joined.

Quote:

2. Past doesn't matter, regardless of how we got here, we're in a mess now and we need to deal with that problem.

I agree, except that the people who got us in to this mess are still in charge and I think it is reasonable to be very skeptical of people who have such a deeply vested interest in trying to validate their previous decisions. I think it is particularly reasonable to be skeptical of those people when they do not show signs of introspection or objectivity about their past actions.

3. General "Betray US". Mostly, I thought that campaign was counterproductive and childish. I do think that it is not without intellectual content though. Petraeus has been presented as an independent judge

Who said independent? What's being said is that he, as the Commanding Officer in Iraq, is the most QUALIFIED judge

Quote:

of what is going on and what path the US should follow. But is he? He didn't present a balanced picture. His presentation was just a pitch that presented the evidence that most favored the administration's view. If it had been made clear that he was just another administration pitch man then I think he should be cut some slack.

Just another pitchman? The man in charge in Iraq, just another pitchman????

Quote:

That's his job and he was doing it in the best way he could.

You clearly have no idea what a U.S. Army 4-star general's job is.

Quote:

But he needs to make clear that he is functioning as a paid advocate

Your military bashing is getting a little old at this point. Military members, not privates, not airmen, not sargeants, and not generals are not paid advocates for politicians

Quote:

and not as an independent citizen

You were expecting a 4-star General to speak as an "independant citizen"????? beyond the fact that he is not even a private citizen it truly amazes me that you expected a general to speak as such

Quote:

speaking the truth as he best knows it to his fellow citizens if he is not to be judged harshly for acting like a paid shill.


No one knows exactly what would happen with a new administration.

I can tell you one thing that won't happen. Iraqis won't lay down thier arms and have a group hug and start singing kum-by-ya. The problems will still exist.

[davefoc]

stanleywinthrop,
Until you said this I thought there was a possibility that this was a discussion between thinking people:

Quote:

sorry to interupt, but just to keep the facts straight, U.S. attornies (sic) serve at the president's pleasure. This means that if Bush doesn't like one's choice of tie he can dismiss him. That's the law.

It is not the law that the POTUS can use the government to serve his personal interests, no matter how many times this phrase is thrown out there to justify it. The most likely situation is that the POTUS conspired with others to use the US attorney's office to further their personal agenda by firing or threatening to fire US Attorneys. This is not something he is allowed to do as a matter of law. It was treason by any measure and it is exactly the kind of action that the US criticizes tin pot dictators for. You would understand this if you could remove yourself for a moment from your partisan bubble.

On the subject of Patreaus: One of the things often quoted from his work is that counter insurgencies require one soldier for every 40 civilians in the occupied population. Is this not a requirement now? Is this the same Patreaus that just before the last election in 2004 wrote an op-ed about how well stuff was going in Iraq? First, it looks like he wasn't right and that might cause one to question his credibility a bit here. But secondly and more importantly in this situation it suggests some partisan leanings by General Patreaus that at least should serve as a warning about how independent his judgment is now. And of course even if Patreaus did not report directly to the president, and he had not been so wrong previously, and he had not acted in a partisan way previously the fact is that what he has provided by way of his reporting to congress was in no way a balanced view of the situation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stanley, the fact you don't get the issue with the attorney firings tells me you are fooled by the slogans and party line into not looking at the actual facts. You see the smokescreen and miss what is behind it.

[davefoc]

I hadn't read the move on ad when I commented on it. Here's a link to it:

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

Seems pretty much in keeping with what others had written on the Patreaus report. Probably wasn't a good idea to make the childish play on words about Patreaus' name because it was certain to be picked up on by people looking to malign the messenger rather than to face facts about what a frigging mess this is and about the fact that it is getting worse all the time.

I noticed that leftwing kook, George Will, was less than supportive of the overall Patraeus message also:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will091207.php3

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Daylight

General Patraeus job number one is to fight the 911 terrorists aka “War on Terror”. That is what we, the American people, were told why we invaded (along with the other 30+ lies by Bush and friends).[/font][/size][/color]

You are wrong, yet again.

Admiral Fallons' job, as the Commander of US Central Command, is to fight the regional part of the War on Terror. This includes operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Another Unified Commander, the Commander, Special Operations Command (another CINC) is also assigned those missions globally. In some missions, SOCOM is the supported commander, and in most of the missions in the CENTCOM AOR, he is a supporting commander. I am referring to formal military command and control relationships here.

General Patraeus is specifically assigned solely to the efforts in Iraq. Admiral Fallon is his direct superios in this effort. For example, if (God forbid) anything happens vis a vis Iran in the near future, that is a mission of Admiral Fallon's that is not within General Patraeus' lane. It is in the Fifth Fleet Commander's lane, and in CENTAF's lane.

With that summary of the current chain of command, and mission responsibility, I will remind you that the next echelon up is the National Command Authority (or perhaps that nebulous War Czar guy whose position is not referenced by any statute I am aware of). The NCA is the Sec Def and the President. Patraeus' next echelon down is LT Gen Ordierno, as I read the org chart. Odierno, oddly enough, was the 4th ID commander in 2003. That unit's operations caused considerable hate and discontent while undertaking its assigned mission in Northern and Central Iraq. I hope he has gotten with the COIN program, or this fall is going to get ugly, and we are talking butt ugly here.

You have yet to get the basics right. I have offered you a chance to get educated. Please accept it.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by stanleywinthrop

You and the majority of the public have missed some key events in U.S. policy in regard to Iraq. Not that I hold this against you, the general public is unschooled when it comes to military tactics and apropros of the current discusssion--counter-insurgency tactics. However, and I'll agree this is quite tragic, the Bush administration (specifically Rumsfeld) was largely ignorant of it as well. This changed with Rumsfeld's departure and the appointment of Patreaus.

Technically, the appointment of Secretary Gates, and Patraeus appointment as a subordinate to Gates.

Quote:

But trust me, as a person speaking from personal experience, things are being done quite differently today than 3 years or even 10 months ago in Iraq.

It is not in the nature of a wide variety of people on this forum to trust anyone's experience. This is a pity, but interference in one's emotionally clung to position is so inconvenient in some such cases. B)

Quote:

Ramadi observation

The unknown, at the moment, is whether or not this is a long term change. 'Twould be nice if it were, but I ain't holding my breath. If this fall passes without the usual autumnal upswing in violent activity in Iraq, that would break a four year pattern. Then, one might come to Congress in December, and brief progress of a more substantial sort: political progress. ( Hello Sec Def/Sec State, what's your calendar look like in December? )

It seems to me that General P briefed progress along these lines: "The femoral artery was bleeding, we have applied direct pressure. No longer bleeding." (Yes, grossly simplistic.)

Quote:

Who said independent? What's being said is that he, as the Commanding Officer in Iraq, is the most QUALIFIED judge Just another pitchman? The man in charge in Iraq, just another pitchman????

You have correctly summarized the opinion of Congressman Lantos, Senator Clinton, Senator Reid, and a few others. Is some defense of their distaste for this hearing's output, the General first briefed Sec Def and the Pres, and one might well presume was provided with some guidance on which points ought to be emphasized. The briefing was a political event, so one could expect political influence on it.

IMO, the person missing from this briefing was Secretary Gates, and I am still puzzled at his not being there. The Congress went three deep in the Chain of Command for this briefing, and as I understand it did so due to the Executive Branch choosing to so reach down for it's presenter.

I think the idea was to have as little filtering as possible with the General's testimony, but even so the harshest critics assumed fiddling. Given the rhetoric from Bush and Co over the past four years, I can't say I am surprised at their reaction. No matter how perfect his testimony is, was, or might have been, General P was set up for derisive responses by the political conditions on the ground in Washington, and there is no way he was going to avoid that. I think he handled that facet of it with considerable grace.

Quote:

You clearly have no idea what a U.S. Army 4-star general's job is. Military members, not privates, not airmen, not sargeants, and not generals are not paid advocates for politicians.

Excepting a certain four star Air Force General I could name.

DR

[Cain]

Not sure if this has been posted already because I have heard the idea floating around for some time. Patrick Cockburn in _Counterpunch_, "President Petraeus?"

Quote:

The US commander in Iraq Gen David Petraeus expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad three years ago according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser and spokesman at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, says that Gen Petraeus discussed with him his long term ambition to be president when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-5.

“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said ‘no, that would be too soon,” said Mr Khadim who now lives in London.

Gen Petraeus has a reputation in the US army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America’s apparent failure in Iraq he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012 or beyond.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

Not sure if this has been posted already because I have heard the idea floating around for some time. Patrick Cockburn in _Counterpunch_, "President Petraeus?"

Another reasonably ambitious, eloquent, intelligent and camera friendly general who recently explored Presidential politics was Wesley Clark. He had mostly successful missions on his resume, and you will note he is not in this race. (My friends who worked on his staff indicated to me they'd not vote him in for dog catcher. Perhaps his public and private personae don't match.)

I am not surprised by General P's reported ambition. Given his role in Iraq, I will not hold my breath on him making good a run at a nomination, much less a presidency, in 2012 or 2016. The taint of the Iraq war, regardless of how well he personally may have performed in his various roles, will likely be a downer in an election.

DR

[Cain]

He's boosting the public's view of how Bush is handling the war. Part of Clark's problem, I think, is that he ran as a Democrat even though (what I heard) he would have identified as a centrist Republican. I think Gen. Colin Powell would have been electable. I think a general has better chances in the GOP.