Except for Kurdistan, Iraq is already a failed state by any objective measure. Failed states take decades to put back together. The US has neither the money (trillions) or time (20-30 years) to fix Iraq. I believe we have a moral responsibility to fix Iraq – we broke it. The problem is that doing so is beyond our capability. I would love to run a one minute mile, or hit 300 homers in a season but such a feat is impossible and so is Iraq.

“The cult of Petraeus exists not because the general has figured out the war but because hiding behind the general allows the Bush administration to postpone the day when it must reckon with the consequences of its abject failure in Iraq.”

I was watching CNN the other day, and according to one of their reporters, support for the war has only increased among Republican supporters, independents and Democrats have not shifted.

The media reaction to O Hanlon and Pollock’s op-ed was extraordinary. Not one interviewer other than Blitzer pointed out the fact that these two ‘critics of the war’ not only supported it, but support the surge as well!

Petraeus acknowledges that while the surge has worked to the extend that violence has gone down somewhat, without a political solution it is a waste of time. Not in so many words I know, and certainly he won’t be saying this come the September report, but its the general feeling amongst military analysts.

My feeling is that the last number of weeks have shown a turn in the propaganda war with pro-war supporters emboldened and the media coming back on side, and we all know what happened the last time these two got together- close to 4000 American soldiers dead and Al Qaeda happy as the proverbial pig in the mountains of Pakistan.

I would disagree, for as Shaun suggests, the Democratic majority in Congress are going to treat it like a live grenade.

The one thing Americans seem to despise above everything else is being a “loser” (cf. Jimmy Carter and “malaise”). The Democrats in Congress are stuck between a Scylla and Charybdis – a netroot monster of the Democratic base that despises the military and foreign wars, and regards both Iraq and Afghanistan as lost – and the whirlpool of the public vote in ‘ 08 election when the American public will savage anyone who declares the US a loser.

Petraeus’ report will be critical to both the GOP and the Democrats – and they will all spin it as best they can, and try to get their pictures taken with the latest American hero for their campaign literature.

Given the transformation of the Iraq meme in the media recent days, I imagine the wind has gone out of the sails of PelosiCo. in pushing for unilateral immediate withdrawal. The netroots will keep pushing, but the fate of Bush shows the dangers of relying solely on the base. Where Berkeley goes, does not go the nation.

Violence in Iraq seems to have gone from terrible to slightly less terrible, but that could be due to the summer heat and not the escalation of troops. Either way, they are still at unacceptable levels.

Progress is just an illusion, not that it matters anyways to pro or anti-war groups here at home. Both the success or failure of the escalation could be used as a reason to stay or leave depending on your point of view. That’s why the September progress report is a joke.

Let me run it down for you from both sides.
Pro-war ========
The surge is showing progress, we can’t leave on the cusp of victory.
The surge is going terribly, we can’t leave the Iraqis to be slaughtered.
Anti-war ========
The surge is showing progress, we should start withdrawing to put pressure on the Maliki government to reconcile the country’s factions
The surge is going terribly, we can’t afford to stick around forever.

Or getting worse?

Or staying the same?

Iraq must be stable and it must have some sort of representative government. Period.

Maybe we should try to return to a representative government here in the U.S. before we try to build one in Iraq.

All snarks aside, stability is key, but our military has shown little to no ability to curb the violence. It really is a deadly game of whack-a-mole as our forces move from city to city trying to quell the violence only to see it spring up from where they just left. A long lasting peace cannot work without training an effective Iraqi security force and brokering some sort of political reconciliation.

Right now we’re basically ensuring the continued violence by keeping the different insurgent groups armed enough to not get totally slaughtered. Maybe that’s the best of the worst options, I don’t know. But I would rather we just accepted the wishes of the occupied and got the hell out.

That these people would be better off under a government that genocided its people, ruled by terror, and on and on.[...] No I reject this argument.

The Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. I don’t like Saddam, you don’t like Saddam, the Iraqi people didn’t like Saddam, but it’s the only logical conclusion given the humanitarian disaster we’ve unleashed. Denying that ignores the body counts and the general state of Iraqi civil society before the first Gulf War.

“Karl Rove’s resignation brought to mind a conversation I had a few weeks ago with an Administration official who genuinely wanted to hear my account of why the Iraq war has gone so badly. In a word, I said, “politics.” At every turn, the White House has tried to use the war, and the larger war on terror, to consolidate power, to reward ideological and political loyalists, to win electoral advantage, to push the Democrats into a corner, to divide the country into patriots and defeatists. President Bush insisted on pursuing a highly partisan domestic agenda rather than unite the country around the war in the spirit of F.D.R. . . . So many disastrous wartime decisions can be traced back to the original sin: policy mattered less than politics. The message in Washington was more real than anything happening in Iraq.

“The official objected passionately.”

I understand where you’re coming from and respect the points you make, but unless we look at how we got into this mess, and highlight the dishonest thinking that brought us to this sorry impass, then we are, as wiser people have said, doomed to repeat our mistakes.

However, I am confident, given your ability to subjugate whatever remains of your ‘journalistic integrity’, that you will continue to try and find every negative, ignore every positive (or, when that is just beyond even your abilities, explain why it is irrelevant), and in general to continue your one man anti-Bush crusade.

I do worry about you, though. What are you going to find to fill the void after January 20, 2008?

This more and more and more and more is becoming the antiwar/antibush/anti anything to do with Iraq talking point.

That these people would be better off under a government that genocided its people, ruled by terror, and on and on. History is full of such leaders and a world that stood by and did nothing.

No I reject this argument. Please make a better one. To relegate these people to this way of life because they dont rock the boat is akin to saying it was okay for the killing fields of Darfur or Laos etc. as long as it does not affect us.

Wrong is wrong no matter what spin you put on it.

I reject this argument and find it revolting and it is becoming the main talking point for the antiwar. I guess that is showing us how desperate they are becoming to get us out of Iraq and show that Bush fellah whose really in charge of foreign policy.

Two generations ago Republican leader Senator Vandenberg put partisanship aside to join with Truman in creating the Marshall Plan to combat creeping communism in Europe. It is unfortunate that many on the Left today cannot do the same,

Good point Marlowe. Its just a pity more republican supporters weren’t making it in the run up to the 2004 presidential election instead of rowing in behind the Bush administration tactic of labelling all who disagreed with them as traitors.

The present division in the country is another self inflicted wound administered by the most useless and incompetent leadership the country has ever known.

I wont even bother commenting on the difference between putting in place a plan to help nations rebuild and a plan that destroyed the political, financial and social structures of a corrupt but once functioning society.

Very good article and I agree with all your points, however, I do think it is possible to win militarily first and then have an atmosphere of stability to build the political solution. What everyone here labels the left as wanting defeat is more of a pragmatic view however. None of us want to lose, but we know enough to realize that without more troops and resources being put into the effort, winning the peace will be impossible.

The only reason the surge seems a success at this point is because insurgents had plenty of time to plan and react to hide weapons and lay low for the most part while it occurs. This is another plus for them because the height of the surge is occurring during the hottest month of the year. While our troops are out in the sun in full gear, the insurgents are now resting and planning. When the surge begins to draw down, it is likely that exhausted US forces will be hit by a wave of well rested insurgents.

To win the war we have to stop using Vietnam tactics. Moving into an area, clearing out insurgents and then leaving has been proven not to work. They will just come back, and every time an operation has to take place in one spot, that pisses off the locals who more and more are going to be against US occupation.

Also, any way you slice the intention of this war, it is immoral. Whether we went in to take their oil or give them democracy. The latter is a modern day version of the ‘White Man’s Burden’ of bring civilization to the ignorant and uncivilized. Iraqis understand this, and that is why most hate us, because we are arrogant enough to view ourselves as superior and them as ignorant and uncivilized.

The political front is another story, of course, as Shaun notes. But it is fascinating how the anti-war Left is in full “pushback” mode on this file…determined to denounce and suppress any report of US successes – however limited – in Iraq.

Two generations ago Republican leader Senator Vandenberg put partisanship aside to join with Truman in creating the Marshall Plan to combat creeping communism in Europe. It is unfortunate that many on the Left today cannot do the same, and are so blinded by hatred of Bush that they are determined the US must be defeated in Iraq.

When a German paper like Der Spiegel – never known for rah-rah love of BushCo. – is more optimistic than many US liberals, it is a sad commentary on the state of US politics today.

It does not matter how we got there, why we went there, who was in charge, who has the power, who does not. It does not matter what Dean, Murtha, Moore, Pelosi, Reid or the Wonderfully ill informed Obama SAY.

Iraq must be stable and it must have some sort of representative government. Period.

Karl Rove is leaving leaving at a pretty opportune time for the Republicans to hope that he is a distant memory come november 2008.

I happen to believe we should have never gone into Iraq at all. But thats not important now. I come from a school of thought that says “Fix what you %&@$ up.” Then drink beer.