It seems like just yesterday that everyone was saying September was the drop-dead date to demonstrate progress in Iraq, or call it a day. In September, the Defense Department was going to evaluate the ‘surge’ and see whether any headway had been made towards a more peacable, secure Iraq. In September, even a bunch of GOP Congresscritters would be ready to defect if the war wasn’t going well.
Today, we find out that September’s DoD evaluation doesn’t really matter; 10 brigades’ worth of replacements and reinforcements are arriving in…August. So they’ll already be there when the results of September’s evaluation come in. So that the ‘surge’ can be maintained through April 2008. And then the generals will decide whether to continue the ‘surge.’
And by then, we’ll be in the middle of a Presidential campaign, as well as Congress gearing up for its own re-election campaigns. And everyone will say, “what’s the point? Only 9 months until we get a new President anyway.”
Yep, the ‘surge’ has accomplished its purpose: to allow Bush to hand this debacle off to his successor. Swell.
Earth to General: You don’t “continue the surge”. If you continue it, it’s no longer a surge, it’s become an escalation, and you need a draft to support it. If you reduce it without success, you’ve just admitted defeat.
I kind of like this little “surge” trope. It’s a semantic noose that the warmongers will eventually hang themselves with.
No. Maybe that’s what you wanted to hear, but Bush never said that. Unless you have a cite…? I believe Petreaus said he thinks Congress and/or the American people will lose patience if they can’t show progress by then, but that’s not the same thing. Seems to me that what they are planning for is that, assuming the surge does show progress, they will keep it going longer. How long? Who knows. These guys seem willing to keep a military presence in Iraq as long as Congress will let them-- or until Bush is out of office, whichever comes first.
But even the Republican hawks in Congress (at least some of them) are putting out the message that they need to see demonstrable progress by late summer or they are going to start setting deadlines for withdrawal. It’s going to be political suicide for most of them up for election if they go into Nov 2008 with troop levels still at what they are now.
Well, he’s planning and assessing. Looks like he’s doing the job we typically ask generals to do.
Considering the criticism leveled at the administration for not planning adequately in the past, it seems not particularly fair to criticize General Petraeus from doing so now that he is in a position to on a much larger scale.
Since it’s relevant, here’s the AFIS press release about the September evaluation. The lead paragraphs:
It would seem that the purpose of an evaluation in the course of an operation is to determine whether to continue with it, and what adjustments need to be made. Odierno is pretty much saying the decision’s already been made to maintain the surge through April 2008 (at which point decisions will be made on whether to continue), and the August troop movements reinforce that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Odierno report to Petraeus? Seems like these guys need to be on the same page.
If the September evaluation is going to be a bit of Baghdad/Beltway kabuki, then just cancel it, OK guys?
Even the Democrats aren’t requiring an immediate withdrawal of all troops in their proposals. Therefore, nobody supposes that we will have all troops out of the area by April even if a withdrawal begins.
Given that, it would be appropriate to plan for what those troops will be doing in that timeframe to assist the Iraqi government, which will have work of its own to do.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but did Congress, in their most recent call for withdrawal bill, actually define WHAT is considered progress in Iraq? Does Congress even have definitive standards of what qualifies as progress? Do the party platforms? Heck, has the Administration even defined it for the press?
I ask only because, if they haven’t, it really will devolve into a political crapshoot (as if it hasn’t already) with varying standards for one Senator/Representative over another. I’d be happy with SOME agreed upon definitive standard, no matter the source, over the generalized “progress” I keep hearing about…
Well, you said “everyone”, so I’m not sure how we were supposed to determine what the context was.
And nothing in that link says he isn’t still planning to do that. But even though you and I don’t have much confidence in The Surge, the Pentagon has to do its planning on the assumption The Surge will show some progress so that troops can be there to continue the effort. You don’t expect them to assume their efforts will fail and that we’ll just bug out in September, do you?
I thought they did-- with the famous “benchmarks”. I don’t recall specifically what those benchmarks were, but unless certain progress was made they threat was that funding would be curtailed.
I would think that points where choices of actions could easily diverge would be just after, rather than just before, points at which evaluations occur on which such choices would naturally be based.
After a little bit of google searching, I couldn’t find mention of what the actual benchmarks congress wants are, save for a reference in one article to the next bill possibly requiring the administration give them a “roadmap” of various economic and other benchmarks before more funding would be approved–and that a number of legislators rumbling for this are Republicans.
So if the pro-war Republicans only support the Iraqi disaster for 4.5 years they will be electable but if they do it for 5.5 years the American electorate will revolt en masse to…the Democrats?
I’d really like to believe, deep down, that the American people aren’t that dumb. But…
Regardless, I’m not going to hold my breath for all these war supporters to start asking for timetables. If they do I’ll be on pins and needles waiting for them to justify their reversal after all these years and why we suddenly need to implement a plan they painted as naive or unpatriotic or whatever only six months before.
Seriously, though, that’s about it. Most Americans supported the war up until a year or two ago-- they just don’t what their politicians to be *too *far behind.
I read the link, I just didn’t follow your train of thought.
