Iraq: Why September Will Be the Cruelest Month
T.S. Eliot famously wrote that “April is the cruelest month,” but it may be September for the Bush administration since it increasingly appears that will be when the proverbial finally hits the fan and there is bipartisan agreement that the war in Iraq is lost and it is time to get out.
This moment, or month or whatever, has been a long time coming, of course, and it is George Bush himself who drew a line in the Iraqi sand in declaring in April that General David Petraeus should be given six months to allow the White House’s last-gasp surge strategy to work.
The welcome result is that Democrats and Republicans alike are coalescing around the notion that if there is not discernible progress by September, then the war is over bar the shouting.
“September is the key,” Representative James Moran Jr., a Virginia Democrat and member of a House committee that funds the war, told The Washington Post. “If we don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who has steadfastly backed the president, broke ranks in speaking for many fellow Republican congressfolk: “By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B.”
There is no Plan B, of course, and never has been, but a September “deadline†has great appeal even if no one has a clue as to what discernible progress might be.
Here’s why . . .
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Iraq: Why September Will Be the Cruelest Month”
It is going to get very ugly, as the partisan rhetoric flies and the blame game continues. I’m curious to see who will still cling to the idea that “significant progress” has been made. Will Petraeus be under enormous pressure to manufacture it if none exists? Will it be like the time when no one was allowed to notice the insurgency or the civil war?
I think the country as a whole is exhausted with the battle between the two parties, and many just want to see it end- they don’t care how. Others , of course, can’t admit it was a boondoggle from start to finish. But I expect leaving Iraq to split this country even worse than leaving Vietnam did, because then we will be debating about Plan B.
K, let me never make the error of falsely accusing you of bearing a bone of optimism!
Shaun, to the extent some of your post is focused prospectively, I salute you. IMO, there is little to be gained toward repairing the torn fabric of this country by constantly reliving events of 2002, 2003 or even March of 2007. May 9th and forward is the only timeframe that can hold promise of effecting something that can be CONstructive.
No, nothing about acknowledging an event of less than acknowledged success of a serious American endeavour is ever going to play well to any American except those who feel it vindicates their personal world view.
The September/October timeframe will be the occasion in which America discovers if it has any great statesmen left….someone(s) who is/are capable of focusing America not on what went wrong and who’s fault is it, but rather here is where we are and here’s how we best reconcile our divided country here’s exactly what we need to do to move forward on a unified basis.
casualobserver:
Your “great statesman” observation resonates powerfully.
We are so caught up in the moment that we have not yet begun to consider what I describe as “the pain of disengagement . . . that will reverberate for years to come” and I’m not sure we will be in any better position to do so this September or next.
There are no evident great statesmen on the scene at the moment, but I am hopeful that one will emerge out of the wreckage of the war and Bush presidency, perhaps someone from either party — or better still a dynamic duo from both parties — who are marginal players now but will rise about crass political showmanship and try to stanch the bleeding. (Gee! I sure sound like a moderate, don’t I, Tatukai.)
The damage that the American “loss” in Vietnam inflicted on government and society was enormous. It’s going to be deja vu all over again, only this time in an America far more fractured than 30 years ago.
The surge is years late, this should have happened years ago. Both the administration and the public aren’t willing to accept even moderate US casualties. The total so far would have been a good year in the late sixties. If we are going to have a war their is going to be dead, yet both W and the public wants nice photo ops.
Well David Broder’s column in WaPo has Cheney privately assuring King Abdullah that our troops will be in Iraq until the end of the Bush presidency. Assuming that’s true- does it really matter if we are making “significant progress” in September? Yes, some in the GOP will get extremely nervous about their election prospects in ’08. But I’m wondering whether they will gather up the nerve to break the unity they have had with the WH over this issue- especially since they need WH and party support for their reelection bids. I see this dragging on until the next president takes office, and then some.
Casual- sorry but I refuse to fake it- guess I wouldn’t have made a good Reaganite, LOL! I’m not seeing the shining city on the hill right now.
Rudi said:
> both W and the public
> wants nice photo ops
I’d disagree about the public, Rudi, since the 2006 elections.
The House Dems have a new Iraq bill ready, that ends funding for Iraq after the summer, that Bush also promises to veto. (If we have a series of vetoes, how long before there is an override and how long before the public may take the Democrats’ side for a change? Depends on what is in future bills.)
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1115427912&hl=en
P.S. Cheney looks awful. Cross your fingers (even if you’re a lefty) and hope he makes it through November 2008. (If he were incapacitated, what then?)
DLS- As much as I despise Cheney, I could never hope for anyone’s demise for political reasons. He does have significant health problems- the blood clots in his legs and history of mild heart attacks.
But I wonder if that is the case, why is he still travelling so much? He’s in Baghdad then will continue on to Saudi Arabia to meet with Abdullah to assure him that there is no chance we will pull out for at least 18 months.
Yes, even if you do not believe it would be useful for US interest to remain at some force level in Iraq though 2008, it will at least be useful for the dialogue here to accept (thankfully or begrudgingly) that the present CIC will do just that.
That said, I can’t see the TOTAL downside to any POTUS candidate to begin picking up on the direction in the Boehner intimated framework as long as they don’t sound like Chris and WA along the way (i.e. obsessed with the rearview mirror dialogue). It suggests to me an opening to be explored in measured rhetoric. When this question was framed in a not-too-broadside-assault fashion by Russert to McCain, even McCain began dialoguing slightly in the direction of the so-called Plan B.
If Petraeus fails to sway public opinion back to the “more for than against” by mid-Sept, those candidates would be seen as having been ahead of the game (i.e., a thoughtful leader). If Petraeus pulls off the modern day miracle (again measured by public sentiment), the candidate just morphs Plan B1 into Plan B2 because we still need to motivate Iraq to stand on its own feet……..i.e., “withdrawal” becomes “handover”.
CO: “there is little to be gained toward repairing the torn fabric of this country by constantly reliving events of 2002, 2003 or even March of 2007.”
Agreed Casualobserver, I’m just as sick from hearing from those that keep looking back at 1990′s with the “Well Clinton did… ” So both sides look at the past for situations that “vindicates their personal world view.”
I’d suggest not looking back to 2003, but to the 1960s and 1970s and the Vietnam War. It’s all the same arguments being played out again. There are only two differences, this time it’s terrorism, not communism and this time there are far less American casualties.
Chris:
And your point is?
And it took a decade for this nation to start recovering from the post Vietnam “malaise”. If what we end up doing this time is labeled “withdrawing”, starting winding up that clock again for its uncomfortable run.
Many mainstreet Americans do not delight to carrying around cynicism as the same badge of honor as others, ocassionally in evidence here, seem to.
For everyone’s emotional wellbeing, financial success and positive mental attitude, I hope we find a way to avoid it.
DLS – My point is that Rummy and Bush treated this war as a high tech police action, they didn’t want the casualties of a true occupation with door to door searches for Baathists and weapons caches. Was this because they thought Rummy’s GenIV army could do it all, or was the concern about the publics acceptance of Vietnam level casualties and bad press? GW1 and Greneda were feel good cable wars, is that all the public will accept
Shaun,
My point is that we need to leave Iraq. Now. People are dying while we’re busy rehashing the same tired arguments. The pro-war side lost back then and it’s going to lose now.
The Vietnamese and the Iraqis now, paid with their lives for our imperial hubris, and then they continued to die while at home we had to bicker over the meaning of progress, the exact definition of our mission and if the American public would accept “defeat.”
From the perspective a rational human being, the situation is quite clear. Aggressive war is wrong, and the failure and end of such a war is the only desirable outcome.
hmm, somehow Green Day’s “Wake me up when September ends” is prophetic…..
There is such a thing as passive war?
I get Chris’ point. One of the reasons a lot have spoken out- Chuck Hagel, John Murtha, the retired generals, is they remember the point in the 60′s when LBJ decided to escalate the war. The military should have spoken up then, but remained silent out of loyalty to the CIC. They don’t want the same mistake made here, when the chances of the Iraqi government having any actual legitemacy are so slim. I think its a bigger mistake not to look back-because it means you never learn from the lessons of history. I don’t think we have any real option but withdrawel (at least partial) and admission that this was a failed effort. Aren’t we just putting that off until Bush can turf it to the next in office?
Chris:
Thank you. I hear you loud and clear.
AustinRoth,
You know what I mean.
If not, I suggest you read up on the Internation Criminal Court and the UN Charter.