So Many Friedman Units, So Little Time & Other News From George Bush’s Forever War
It seemed like only yesterday that General David Petraeus wowed the chuckleheads on Capitol Hill with his progress report on George Bush’s Forever War. Well, it actually was September, at which time the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said that any decision on beginning to withdraw his troops should “be put off for six months.”
I know this is going to shock – just shock – you, but Petraeus now says the U.S. needs at least one more Friedman Unit, pretty please:
“We think we won’t know that we’ve reached a turning point until we’re six months past it. We have repeatedly said that there is no lights at the end of the tunnel that we’re seeing. We’re certainly not dancing in the end zone or anything like that.”
If you find yourself feeling whipsawed at this point, you’re not alone because much of the Republican establishment and a goodly number of Democrats are dancing in the end zone. And expect the commander in chief to do a jig during his State of the Union address next week.
The reality is 6,000 miles due east of Washington. Except for thankfully lower U.S. and Iraqi civilian death tolls because of the initial success of Petraeus’ Surge strategy, there has been no progress whatsoever toward reconciliation, a prerequisite for troop withdrawals and the ultimate test of whether the Surge is a lasting success.
The recent passage of the un-de-Baathification law was hailed by some Iraqis as a sign of progress, but the law is a bad joke and not even the Bush administration is embracing it. Then there is Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, where insurgents blew up a massive weapons cache in a vacant apartment building yesterday as an Iraqi army unit arrived to investigate it. At least 150 Iraqis are dead or wounded.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
7 Responses to “So Many Friedman Units, So Little Time & Other News From George Bush’s Forever War”
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything in that interview that anything had been put off or delayed.
Petraeus stated in his September testimony a schedule for force reductions to pre-surge levels by July 2008 and he explicitly stated that no decision on further force reductions could be made before March 2008 at the earliest. I don't see that anything has changed in that schedule. Are you now saying that the decision of future force reductions will not take place until the fall 2008? If so, he does not say that in the interview.
Andy:
We're both right. Petraeus said nothing explicit about force reductions except that there aren't going to be any beginning in March — and he won't know when there will be until six months beyond a turning point that people outside of Washington understand has not been reached.
Just to be clear: I'm not twigging Petraeus. I'm calling out the dancers.
Shaun,
You're reading too much, I think, into what he said in this interview:
Of course, we also don't know what specific question this comment was even responding to, so there's little context to evaluate it. Still, I don't see how anyone can take that to mean that troop withdrawals will somehow be delayed, particularly since none have been announced beyond those already made and also considering a decision won't even be looked at until the spring. Again, where is the Freidman unit here? You stated in your post that, “Petraeus now says the U.S. needs at least one more Friedman Unit…” so where is it? He said nothing of the kind that I can see.
Andy:
You're being too literal. Take a quarter step back and read into what Petraeus is saying, which implicitly is (a.) No troop withdrawals for the forseeable future, and (b.) the people in Washington are out of their gourds.
“The reality is 6,000 miles due east of Washington.”
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=LTAZ
If it makes you feel better:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=kdca&RANGE=6…
Shaun,
Do you even know if Petraeus was talking about troop levels? It's hard to “read into” what he was saying since it's one edited sound bite and we don't know what the question was he responded to.
And “no troops withdrawals for the foreseeable future”? I assume you mean no troop withdrawals other than those already scheduled to take place over the next six months right? And it's quite prescient on you part that you can so confidently assert no further withdrawals will occur after July since such a decision won't be made until March at the earliest! Excuse me if I don't see how such assertions flow so easily from the Petraeus quote – perhaps you could explain?
Additionally, you might consider being a little less “literal” yourself since you've attributed to Petraeus something he did not, in fact, say. Just sayin'