As General David Petraeus gets ready to deliver his report on the “surge” (most likely he will say it is working and will argue for it to continue into the spring, at the very least), there are two MUST READ pieces.
First, this Huffington Post piece by former George Bush strategist Matthew Dowd. Here are some of his key points, with some observations from my little corner in San Diego:
1. In the public’s mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a “rearview” mirror issue — meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren’t wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.
And, indeed, this is why the present tactic (used by almost everyone in American politics these days) of demonizing the opposition is so inaccurate. Even thinking people who strongly support the war know that many people who either oppose a the war or feel it’s being run poorly are concerned about the troops and don’t hate them or want to see the U.S. lose. You can question or oppose a policy and not want to see troops die or your country be defeated.
2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn’t support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm’s way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.
3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved — and soon — and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly.
In a sense, Bush has developed great power by default.
We now have an answer to how deeply many Republicans felt about tenets talked about as critical to Republican thought for years. Some Republicans will adjust (and seemingly jettison) their beliefs to keep in step with the White House’s. Some Goldwater-descended Republicans will not. Meanwhile, Democrats fearful of being caught in a Rovian trap and being successfully demonized have not gone to the MAT and risked their careers if necessary to take stands demanded by some of the Democratic Party’s progressive base.
The result: little change in policy due to enough Republicans who’ll go along with the White House after making independent noises and Democrats who don’t want to possibly risk overreaching since it might cost them their careers.
4. The war in Iraq is now seen exclusively as a foreign policy concern, and the American public no longer supports the initiative as part of national security. This is in stark contrast to the war’s beginning — at inception, the public perceived it as directly related to fighting terrorism, and thus it was seen as a domestic policy issue connected to homeland security. Not surprisingly, the public gave it broad support. Today, this is no longer the case — the dynamic has changed and most of the public sees no “positive” relationship between the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
But this doesn’t stop the White House and some radio talk show hosts from repeating the mantra and it is enough to keep portions of the GOP in line — who in turn can keep Congressional Republicans in line.
Read his post in its entirety.
Next, read “Planning for Defeat” by George Packer in The New Yorker. It’s a long piece, but here are a few quick highlights:
This week, Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, and General David Petraeus, the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, will give their assessment of the surge to Congress—an event that, in Washington, has taken on the aura of a make-or-break moment for the Administration’s policy. But their testimony is likely to be unremarkable. Administration officials, military officers, and members of Congress described their expectations of it in strikingly similar terms, and a few said that they could write it in advance: military progress, a political stalemate among Iraqis, more time needed.
This is what is now leaking out and being carried in the mainstream media and on many blogs.
MORE:
The Petraeus-Crocker testimony is the kind of short-lived event on which the Administration has relied to shore up support for the war: the “Mission Accomplished†declaration, the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam’s capture, the transfer of sovereignty, the three rounds of voting, the Plan for Victory, the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Every new milestone, however illusory, allows the Administration to avoid thinking ahead, to the years when the mistakes of Iraq will continue to haunt the U.S.
And, indeed, if you look at the pattern, it is of an administration that is constantly trying to BUY TIME. Today, more than ever, you get the feeling that the Bush administration is trying to run out the clock so the actual loss of Iraq has no chance of being on its watch. MORE:
The media have largely followed the Administration’s myopic approach to the war, and there is likely to be intense coverage of the congressional testimony. But the inadequacy of the surge is already clear, if one honestly assesses the daily lives of Iraqis. Though the streets of Baghdad are marginally less lethal than they were during 2006, sixty thousand Iraqis a month continue to leave their homes, according to the International Organization for Migration, joining the two million who have become refugees and the two million others displaced inside Iraq. The militias, which have become less conspicuous as they wait out the surge, are nevertheless growing in strength, as they extend their control over neighborhoods like Ahmed’s. In the backstreets, the local markets, the university classrooms, and other realms beyond the reach of American observers or American troops, there is no rule of law, only the rule of the gun. The lives of most Iraqis are dominated by a complex array of militias and criminal gangs that are ruthlessly competing with one another, and whose motives for killing are more often economic or personal than religious or ideological. A recent report by the International Crisis Group urged the American and British governments to acknowledge that their “so-called Iraqi partners, far from building a new state, are tirelessly working to tear it down.â€
There’s more — and it will be debated fiercely by both sides….just as Petraeus’ testimony will today.
Add these two pieces to the fact that apparently Petraeus will indeed give administration-friendly Fox News an exclusive interview (will the show be called “Softball?”) and it suggests that it’ll be pleasantly surprising if the General’s testimony will change the political dynamics.
Most likely, three or six months from now there will be some new event to wait for…as the war continues…and the Bush administration’s clock winds down.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.