Actually Petraeus has never said they were unrealistic (that I’m aware of), that was my assessment and it was my opinion that Petraeus probably thought they were unrealistic too, which is why he wasn’t one of the people who developed those goals (from what I understand the goals were developed by Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and the President agreed to them.)
Sorry, “that dog don’t hunt.” It’s not the job of General Petraeus to mention when the President is being stupid, that is the job of the President’s opposition in Congress, it would be incredibly inappropriate for a military officer to do that. Petraeus said he would be honest with Congress if civilian leadership was providing false or misleading information, the civilian leadership was setting goals. Goals in and of themselves can’t be false or misleading. If the President set goals that he said he would reach and he genuinely didn’t think they could be reached, that would be an act of lying, however there’s no evidence Petraeus knew that the President thought the goals were unreachable. In fact, every indication is Bush and his political advisers genuinely believed the goals were attainable, as I said, it was yet another example of unrestrained and dangerous optimism on behalf of the administration.
Your attempted characterization fails miserably. Were they overly optimistic? Certainly. Were they “false and misleading statements”? Maybe. If we can demonstrate that the Bush administration knew when it agreed to said goals that they were unreachable. Does it speak badly of the General’s character? Maybe. If we can show that both the Bush administration knew the goals were unreachable AND that Petraeus knew that the administration knew they were unreachable. Otherwise, they were just overly optimistic goals and it isn’t the place of Petraeus to criticize the President.
As I said, there’s no evidence Petraeus colluded with the administration to do that. In fact I find it disgusting that you level such an accusation against a hard working military leader who has been nothing but forthright in his reports to Congress, in a silly, ineffectual, and pathetic attempt to somehow “counter” something that I had said.
Note the post of mine I actually quoted. I never said “the Bush Administration knew these goals to be unreachable” I said instead that if guys like Odierno and Petraeus were establishing a set of goals, they almost certainly would not have set said goals. Maybe they would have, but I doubt it, I know they wouldn’t set goals they felt to be unrealistic, and I have enough faith in their capabilities that they would have realized said goals were unrealistic.
I should have read this before posting. I actually thought they were goals that Congress set in exchange for agreement on funding, and that the goals were generally developed by Congress (with some cooperation from the President) and then agreed to by Bush. If they were just goals set by the Iraqi government then yeah, there’s little reason to even discuss them in my opinion.
Show me where Petraeus said he would take it upon himself to label political policy decisions (like the setting of benchmarks) to be “optimistic and unrealistic crap?” He said he would give honest, accurate reports to Congress on any basis they desired and that he would not cover up or be silent if civilian leadership presented false or misleading information, even if the President or the administration told him to do so. There’s no evidence that Bush thought the goals were unrealistic, so even if Petraeus thought they were, it would not be his place to say so unless asked by Congress. Was he asked by Congress? If so, how did he reply? All I see is evidence that he said he wouldn’t make false or misleading statements and that he would report to Congress on any basis they requested of him.
The surge didn’t become fully operational until June. That’s what people (mostly people who have no interest in looking at this from an unbiased perspective) fail to understand. Just because it was announced X months ago doesn’t mean it started then. It takes time to move units into theater, it takes time to redeploy people. If you had read the report that General Odierno made you would see that we’re talking about highly successful operations that have only very recently gotten fully under way. You’re like a Congressional Republican in 1944 asking why Operation Overlord hadn’t caused the collapse of Nazi Germany by July, 1944.
The link in the OP is talking about the political benchmarks. Petraeus was talking about the military benchmarks. From the OP:
From your Petreaus link:
Updates on the political and economic situation will be given to Congress by the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker*, not by Petraeus. If they ask him about such matters I’d expect him to defer to the ambassador since he’s not really qualified to talk about the political situation.
*Hopefully not affectionately known as “Crock 'er Shit”.
John, AFAICT they are both included in the benchmarks list that I cited. What Petraeus referred to as “what they [the Iraqis] have agreed to provide in terms of the military forces in Iraq, money for the reconstruction, money for foreign military sales and so forth”. E.g., “money for the reconstruction” means benchmark #17, “the military forces in Iraq” refers to benchmarks #9, 10, and 15, and so forth.
AFAICT, all the people talking about the “targets” and “benchmarks” in these linked media reports and transcripts are talking about the same basic set of goals agreed upon between Iraq and the US, and enumerated in the list I quoted above. Can you provide any definite evidence that this is not the case?
This sounds somewhat convoluted and evasive to me. You maintain that you think Petraeus knew the benchmarks were unrealistic, and if so, then clearly he must have considered it misleading to present the benchmarks as a set of realistic goals. But you argue that his promise to blow the whistle on false or misleading information didn’t obligate him to point this out unless Congress specifically asked him about the benchmarks? :dubious:
Whats your point? I seem to recall that there have been periodic shelling into the Green Zone (as well as just about everywhere else) for years now. Are you saying its getting worse? That this incident is part of a larger picture or pattern of greater violence? Do you have a cite for that…or are you just saying that a random act means its not working? Or…something?
I recall that periodically (granted LESS periodically) such rockets and mortars are fired into Israel as well…
(I didn’t expect miricles myself…in fact, I have to admit I didn’t expect much of anything from this whole ‘Surge™’ non-sense. Still, I have to admit that there DOES seem to be a few bright spots…and it DOES seem, to me at least, that people want to focus ONLY on the dark ones. YMMV…)
Well, I think what it’s about is wariness more than pessimism. I’m certainly glad of the bright spots, but it’s worth noting (which is why the OP started the thread, presumably) that the “dark spots” are the issues that were originally offered as the important goals for doing this “surge” thing in the first place.
Now we’re being told by some that the original goals were impossible, unrealistic, over-sold, over-hasty, etc., and the really important goals in this situation are the things that our forces have managed to do, and if we keep “harping” on the failure to meet the originally-specified goals then we’re defeatists and pessimists and biased and what have you. This, to me, has rather a whiff of moving goalposts.
Wasn’t that about the time the surge began? Besides, thats not exactly a statistical analysis there…just a snapshot in time from what I could see. Statistically, are there more incidents today than any other time? If so (and it could very well be so)…what does this mean exactly? I have no idea, myself. Seems like it could mean several things…some nasty, some otherwise.
Well, I wouldn’t go so far myself as to predict the death throes of the insurgency…
:smack:
Oh, thats not what you were getting at.
Ok, so some other things it could mean. Well, I suppose one could look at it as some insurgent groups are increasingly under pressure from attacks to DO something…and what better way to DO something that will get in the news than attack just about anything in the Green Zone. Or, another way to look at it might be that they are getting desperate and want to lash out. Or that they hope to change the enemy (a.k.a. us) plan of action, and get us reacting to them. It could be for hundreds of reasons (though I think death throes is probably not in it at this point…either way)…some good, some bad.
Sure, I’ll take your bet…depending on who is supposed to be saying this. And also on a (reasonably unbiased) assessment of where we actually DO stand by September. Someone with enough knowledge and expertese to actually be able to rationally look at whats been done, what effect its had, and where things stand.
I’m certainly not going to bet on BUSH (et al) not spinning things in the best possible light. I’d like to see an assessment from Petraeus at that time, and base the bet or what have you on his assessment. I bet he does NOT come back and say ‘September is when things will finally be in place. So, we just need six months from September to make a real judgment as to how well it’s working.’ If its not working my bet is that he says so basically.
But of course his own latest report notes that it might be Spring of 2008 at the earliest before the program can be evaluated, which may poison the well to start ;).
I’ll also note that I don’t always agree with him myself. He, for example, considers the entrance of Sunni tribes into the fight in Anbar province to be a positive. Short term, perhaps. But I think the arming and support of tribal sheikhs by the U.S. is, long-term, an unmitigated disaster. It’s just one more kick in the balls to the authority of a central government. But, y’know, YMMV :p.
Yes, but it doesn’t appear those are the ones the article is talking about. The word “military” only appears once in the OP’s article, and that is in reference to Guantanamo. It’s clear to me that the article is talking about the political stalemate that we’ve seen taking place in Iraq for the last year or so. The benchmarks in the article are those concerning “political, economic and other reform”. Nothing about the number and readiness of the ISF, or the amount of money allocated for reconstruction. Chief among the issues for “economic reform” is the dividing up of oil revenues, something that Petreaus is not involved in, but that Crocker is.
As I said, I think “false or misleading information” is, in fact, “information that is false or misleading.” A set of economic, political, and maybe even military goals can’t be false. How can you have a “false goal?” Even if every one involved thought said goals weren’t reachable, I’m not sure that’d make said goals “false information.” The more I think about it, the more I’m not sure that the goals would be false/misleading information even if every single person involved in creating them knew they were unreachable.
John brings up a good point, that any non-military aspects of said benchmarks wouldn’t be something General Petraeus should be expressing a public opinion on.
I think it’d be helpful to know precisely what benchmarks there were, the articles I’ve read have mainly focused on 3-4 specific ones dealing with the government of Iraq.
To be honest I’m not sure if my mileage varies or not. I have a pretty good surface idea of the situation over there, and I know (in a fuzzy sort of way) both your concern and how such a thing could be viewed as positive wrt the Sunni tribes, but I don’t have the depth on that subject to really grasp whether its a kick in the balls to the central government (I’m sure it is), if its a way to get those folks to have a stake in the fight, if thats a good thing, bad or something inbetween.
If you feel up to it I’d be VERY interesting if you could expand your point a bit and give your take.
Ah but the president says we are making progress in eight of the sixteen targetted areas and we need just a little more time.
I am reminded of the bail bondsman whose ads read, “I’ll get you out if it takes twenty years.”
Bush’s words in the news conference this morning encapsulated what Petraeus’ September report will say. “We’ve made substantial progress in area A, some progress in B and C but results in D, E, and F have been disappointing. Give us another six months and the picture will change for the better.”
I just want to emphasize that when speaking about “the benchmarks” it’s important to identify specifically which benchmarks you’re talking about. Often it seems to be used a shorthand for “the political benchmarks” and even though the linked article uses the word “all” in its title, the text of the article seems to imply that it’s only talking about a subset. And clearly Petraeus was not talking about all of the benchmarks in his Congressional hearings. I suspect you may have been using too broad a brush in your original post about the benchmarks being unrealistic. Many of the political goals (benchmarks) were, I think, ridiculously optimistic. But some of the concrete military ones were not.
