Petraeus: Surge May Have To Go Beyond September
It increasingly looks like critics of the Bush administration who were called cynical and overly partisan may be able to say “I told you so” on the “surge” of U.S. troops into Iraq when a highly awaited report is delivered in September.
When the idea for the surge surfaced, some argued that when Gen. David H. Petraeus gave his highly-awaited progress report on the “surge” come September it would be a “given” that the surge had succeeded, or was at least headed towards success. The war’s staunchest critics, on the other hand, argued that when September rolled around the word would probably be that more time was needed…that the troops would have to stay over there longer than many hope or that perhaps even more boots on the ground would be needed.
Now, once again in the ever-controversial history of the Iraq war, it appears once again that the people who outlined the worst case scenario that assumed the original administration plans were either a)overly optimistic or b)a kind of way to buy time to keep the war going longer than admitted in public….may turn out to be correct (or to at least appear to be correct). The Washington Post blog:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said he does not expect the “surge” of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to finish their job by September, a critical month when lawmakers expect a clear read on whether the larger troop presence is having an effect.
“Fox News” Host Chris Wallace asked Petraeus, “You surely don’t think the job would be done by the surge by September?”
“I do not, no,” Petraeus replied. “We have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007 … was substantial.”
Petraeus also did not dispute reports indicating he might want to extend the troop increase into next year, simply calling them “premature.”Petraeus and his partner, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, appeared on the Sunday talk shows as the final troops arrived as part of the surge strategy, which looks to quell violence in Baghdad and the surrounding regions as Iraqi politicians seek political compromises.
In a sense, though, Petraeus report will raise eyebrows no matter what he says:
–If he says there’s progress some will dismiss it as mere spin.
–If he says they need to stay over longer, some will say the “surge has failed.”
But the key problem remains the incredible — and increasing — hubris of the Bush administration which has begun to match the hubris of the Lyndon Johnson administration in terms of official pronouncements versus reports about the war (which you’ll find in great quantities in most newspapers and on most TV and cable networks, except for Fox News which has greatly decreased its war coverage). Due to its credibility problems on a host of issues, the Bush administration’s pronouncements are increasingly taken by many Americans with a grain of salt. And by some with all the salt in the Dead Sea.
Indeed, those arguing for a draw down of U.S. troops and/or an exit are being told in no uncertain terms that it’s not going to happen:
Speaking on Fox News, General David Petraeus said there was broad recognition in Washington that Iraq’s daunting challenges would not be resolved ‘in a year or even two years.’
‘In fact, typically, I think historically, counter-insurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years,’ he said.
President George W. Bush and other US officials have taken to invoking South Korea as an example of a protracted US presence in a country long after formal hostilities have ended.
But in Congress, Democrats agitating for an early withdrawal of US forces have fastened on Petraeus’s appraisal report due in September as a make-or-break moment for Bush’s war campaign.
A Pentagon report last week said that overall levels of violence in Iraq have not gone down, even if unrest has eased in Baghdad and the long-restive province of Anbar, where the US military surge is focussed.
The outlook: continued partisan struggle over the war, Republicans seeking re-election facing tough choices in 2008 as official determination to stay in Iraq a while runs counter to shrinking poll-measured support for the war, pressure on Democrats to do more to end the war than their procedural efforts so far, pressures from the Democratic base for party elites to take a stronger anti-war line and the continuation of White House isolation from politicians of both parties who seek any kind of political future.
But until a new President is in office, the shots about a continued presence in Iraq are called by the Bush White House, unless the Democrats have the votes and will to cut off war funding. And neither exist yet. So expect polarization and controversy over the war to grow.
And September? Today’s news reports suggest it won’t be a benchmark month but just another month of controversy that will continue to build heading into 2008. The war most assuredly will be a huge issue in the 2008 Presidential campaign.
24 Responses to “Petraeus: Surge May Have To Go Beyond September”
[...] (Hat Tip: Joe Gandelman/The Moderate Voice) [...]
This war will go on until the next president ends it. Its really pathetic.
Well let us see what the War in Iraq has done for America.
1.) It has shown the world and America how incompetent Harry Reid actually is. That a once powerful Senator has proven himself the most politically incompetent man on earth.
2.) Democrats have regained the house and the senate.
3.) George W. Bush has decided to let his party burn in hell for his inability to communicate and unwillingness to even try.
4.) Michael Moore has gotten richer because of the 911 attacks, while accusing Republicans of getting richer over the 911 attacks.
5.) The GOP is talking about dissolving their party and reshaping it to include gays and lesbians, Gun control advocates, Abortion rights activists and Conservative doves while disbarring Christians from membership.
6.)Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have proven they are very good at polarizing America.
7.) Air America is irrelevant.
8.) Ann Coulter is still Hot.
9.) Jimmy Carter is still Clueless.
10.) They really have not made any good movies lately. What?? Oh my daughter says Im just getting too old to know. Probably true.
11.) The world will shortly come to an end.
12.) If Global Warming don’t do in America then them illegal aliens will. If the Islamic Fascists don’t do in America then the lack of medical care will.
13.) BOTH parties run their policy based on fear tactics the enemies are just different.
14.)And the greatest lesson the war in Iraq has taught us??
America is incompetent, Impotent and on the verge of collapsing into irrelevancy.
Of course the ‘surge’ is going to last beyond September. This administration will do anything to shove responsiblity for anything off to someone else.
This ‘little’ ‘war’ was never about ‘democracy and freedom’ and everything about controlling resources certain groups want before another group controls it.
There is a press release I’d like to read! Can you provide a source?
To me the silliest thing about almost all the so called ‘analysis’ going on these days about the surge is that, regardless of which view you hold towards Iraq, the surge, and the conflict in general, to expect any armed military conflict to clearly resolve itself according to a predetermined time-line is fallacy.
Yeah talk to your buddy Pete….Jason.
Secondly what I find comical is that all the analysis is coming from people like me. I have not been to Iraq. At least during this war so I do not have a clue what is going on over there.
Yet My analysis is the truth about how it really is. Yeah right. I only disagree here because the rest of you are convinced you know the “Truth.”
Its funny I spent about 6 months defending the NSA wire taps because everyone was saying that Bush was spying on Americans in secret yet the Democrats were SILENT on the whole thing which told me “NO” they were fully informed. Well reading George Tenets book informs us that indeed the Democrats were right smack dab in the MIDDLE of the NSA wiretaps and knee deep in it but they let BUSH burn for it.
There was no conspiracy to spy on Americans. Only a conspiracy to save lives by a president AND DEMOCRATIC SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN who were consumed with protecting America.
Yet all the bloggers of this world have all the facts and know the truth. Yeah and Im going to win the Powerball next week.
I find it freakin hilarious that the number one thing this war has taught “somebody” is that Harry Reid is incompetent.
Just boggles the mind I tell ya.
What Petraeus said on Fox News and Ambassador Crocker on Meet the Press are part of the usual Administration attempt to control the political dialogue. The real news was on Face the Nation where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that, after September, endangered Congressional Republicans will be saving themselves by going along with timetables for withdrawal:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/surge-sunday-talk-show-smokescreen.html
This isn’t the first time W has said one thing and the actual results or policy was something else. W works in Friedman time lines, then comes up with something new and ignores what happened in the past.
“I find it freakin hilarious that the number one thing this war has taught “somebody†is that Harry Reid is incompetent.
Just boggles the mind I tell ya.”
Lol, ditto.
“I find it freakin hilarious that the number one thing this war has taught “somebody†is that Harry Reid is incompetent.
The rest of the world is laughing at him too. Saying to themselves
“This guy is really not in charge? Right?”
Even if I were to think that you’re accurately characterizing his views, Somebody, do you mean to claim that Pete speaks policy for the entire GOP?
Pete has another post up Jason in which he is going forward with his call for doing exactly as I prescribed. He and his letter want to neutralize the RR in the GOP and embrace social polices that Rudi Guillani embrace.
Gay rights, Abortion rights, Gun Control along with essentially calling for the censure of the Religious right. Now today he is pressing for this letter to be endorsed by many Right political groups.
So does he speak for the GOP. NO. Yet I only used him for example. Look at the post Michael Reagan had here the other day about Bush and his burning ship. This party is in disarray same as the Dems were in 1994. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else and you know what the DEMS did to fix themselves?
NOT a Damn thing. Because their was nothing wrong with them other then they started to believe the trash that the GOP had been accusing them of for about 14 years.
Now the Dems are talking smack about the GOP and the gop pundits are starting to believe the crap the left is flinging at us. Because we lost exactly ONE election.
Geeze even the Dems had more guts then that. They lost in 80, 84, 88 and 94 before it finally started making them think.
So yes. I believe the GOP is in Disarray and the LEADING CANDIDATE believes in GAY RIGHTS, ABORTION RIGHTS, GUN CONTROL and has been married umpteen times.
Convince me IM making stuff up?????!!!??!!
He’s not a Social Conservative and you’re up in arms… I’m sorry but I can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you.
For anyone even remotely familiar with the US deployment system and deployment cycles this “admission” by Petraeus has been obvious since the “Surge” was first announced. The surge was advertised as roughly a year commitment with time on both ends for the draw-up and draw-down in forces. I don’t know where people got the impression that the “surge” would be over by September.
Remember that the full “surge” has only just begun this month with the addition of the final units and the plan is only now beginning to be fully implemented. If troops are supposed to start drawing down in September that leaves two whole frickin months!
Like I said, the deployment schedule dictates when the surge will end unless units are sent home early. We will not begin drawing down to pre-surge levels until late this year and will actually fall to well below pre-surge levels by the middle of 2008. They’ll have to since we have more than 50% of the force currently deployed.
He’s not a Social Conservative and you’re up in arms… I’m sorry but I can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you.
That pretty much sums it up. And I totally agree with your assessment. There should not be woe is us GOP is a disaster because we have lost an election.
The dems/left/antiwar have defined the fight and the right gave up fighting back because Bush and Company gave no willingness to want to fight back.
Thus the perception is that the GOP is a total wash and needs to be overhauled.
I do not concur. So I’m glad you don’t feel sorry for us. I also do not feel sorry for the GOP. Its time they got off the matt and started figuring out how to fight back or else they will be rendered inconsequential.
I don’t think that reducing the dominance of the so-called “religious right” is the same thing as “disbarring [sic] Christians”.
Nothing about gay rights violates basic conservative principles, certainly. And different opinions about abortion have existed within the GOP for a long time without destroying the party. As for gun control, well, even as a gun owner myself I think there is room for moderates there too.
In short, I think you’re overreacting to a very mild movement towards readjustment.
IM reacting to the statement he made that pretty much nullified the rights to representation of the Religious right by the gop.
I have an Idea. Why dont we nullify the rights to representation of the Gays and the Abortion rights movement people.
That would be fair wouldnt it.
I mean Ill sign this letter if the Democrats denouce the rights of Gays and Abortion rights to representation within their party.
I read his draft letter. I found nothing that kicks Christians out of the party or denies them full rights of participation.
As I keep reminding debaters that I coach and judge, failure to win the argument is not the same as exclusion from the forum.
I would in fact debate it more but this has sorta hijacked the thread and I did not mean for it to do that.
So Ill be quiet now.
Jason I was reacting to the initial letter posted which said this.
It is a warning to those Party leaders who continue to allow social conservatives to define the GOP by a set of stringent and divisive policy positions on sexuality and beginning-and-end-of-life issues. The days of these social conservatives’ dominance in our party are numbered. They are welcome in the Party, but their influence will progressively subside in direct proportion to the rising influence of the undersigned and tens of millions of others like us, who represent a majority of both Republicans and Americans.
Now while it might be true that he pulled this draft and modified it a bit, there can be no doubt what the underlying intention of this movement is about.
The nullification of influence that a Huge block of voter have in this country and certainly within the GOP.
So, you said that Christians would be “disbarred” from the party. Yet, Pete says “they will be welcome in the Party” but that “their influence will subside” only as a larger “majority” rises.
In short, Pete doesn’t say anything except that he wants to grow a bigger majority. He doesn’t strip anyone of representation and, in fact, says exactly the opposite. It sounds like the “underlying intention” is the same as any other democratic (small d) political movement. If you don’t like it, try to be persuasive in opposing it and building your own majority in the party. But please don’t pretend he is trying to disenfranchise anyone.
This was a threat…This is no different then the letter Michael Moore sent to his democratic congressmen informing them they would be defeated if they did not toe the line and be against the war.
There is nothing in this that can be construed as a positive. Unless you are a social liberal who wants to be a Republican.
You said If you don’t like it, try to be persuasive in opposing it and building your own majority in the party.
Within the Republican party many philosophies reside. Equally within the Democratic party many philosophies reside. There are fiscally conservative Democrats and Republicans. There are those who favor abortion on both sides.
Yet here is a letter intended to UNITE the party by supposedly taking its divisive issues and making it the very reason why they are the Uniters.
That which divides this country is what Pete choses to divide this party.
Social Issues. His solution. Forsake the values of the majority on the right and embrace the values of the majority on the left.
This is a solution? HOW?