Waiting for Petraeus: The Games We Play

Right now Washington is gearing up for the appearance before Congress of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They are to testify on September 11th on the progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq since President Bush implemented his "surge" plan to promote political stability and military security in Iraq. The content of their reports can largely be discerned from recent briefings and the national intelligence estimate on Iraq released this week.

It all sounds straightforward, but it is not. There is gamesmanship at work.

The "surge," while having a questionable impact in Iraq has already shaken up politics here at home. No matter how the administration spins the situation in post-"surge" Iraq, it remains bleak. The killing continues as U.S. and Iraqi casualties mount. At one point, the Bush administration sought some advantage, pointing to lower July U.S. casualty totals as evidence of success. But that was immediately countered by the fact that in the past several years, July casualty figures for U.S. troops in Iraq have always been lower -- and this year's July casualty figures were actually higher than those of the past. And while Iraqi deaths are down in areas where there has been an increase in U.S. troop presence, as predicted, the violence moved to other parts of the country.

At the same time, too many Iraqis remain without power, water and basic security. More than four million Iraqis are either refugees or internally displaced, and the internal political dynamic of the country remains as volatile as ever.

Nevertheless, the introduction of an additional 30,000 troops in targeted areas and new tactics used in other areas (cooperating with some Sunni tribes against Al-Qa'ida elements) has had some impact. But progress here comes with the potential risk of further weakening the central government. In any case, the White House has been able to spin this limited progress to their advantage. While two-thirds of the American people still think that the war was a mistake and as many want the U.S. to withdraw, there is now an increase in the number of Americans who think the "surge" is "making the situation better in Iraq." This month's polling numbers show 29 percent of Americans feel this way, as opposed to only 19 percent last month.

In playing their hand, the administration holds two trump cards. For one, most Americans are loathe to criticize the military or to suggest that those who have made the ultimate sacrifice have done so in vain. The second is that as bad as the situation in Iraq may be, it is clear that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will only make things worse.

Responsible Democrats have always understood this. Barack Obama, who alone among his party's leading candidates for president stood in opposition to the war, has consistently cautioned that "we cannot leave as irresponsibly as we entered." But others in the party have gone too far out on a limb, calling for an immediate and total withdrawal -- a position that is both irresponsible and unsustainable.

It is this view, with it inherent vulnerabilities, that the administration has targeted, and with some effect. A few Democratic members of Congress who had opposed the war and the "surge" appear to have had a change of heart following recent trips to Iraq. Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington noted, "People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this. I know it's going to cost hundreds of Americans lives and hundreds of billions of dollars." And he added, "One, I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a responsibility.. and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole for our own security."

But while support for the U.S. military's effort may be growing and a concern for the consequences of a withdrawal may buy the Administration some limited time to continue the "surge," trouble is brewing on another front.

With the military inoculated against criticism, Congressional and White House wrath appears to now be focused on Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The Chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, returned from Iraq last week calling for Maliki's ouster. He was joined by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said, "I share Senator Levin's hope that the Iraqi Parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."

Even the White House, in a sign of frustration, sent a deliberately mixed message to the Prime Minister. On August 21, Bush warned "The fundamental question is: Will the government respond to the demands of the people? ... If the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government." The next day he almost balanced his assessment of al-Maliki by observing, "Prime Minister Maliki's a good guy, a good man with a difficult job and I support him," but then quickly added that it wasn't the job of U.S. politicians to change Iraq's leaders (read: Senator Clinton) -- that was the job of the Iraqi people (read: Al-Maliki).

Making the Iraqi Prime Minister the scapegoat may buy the Administration more time by diverting attention away from U.S. policy failures, but this is a risky business and somewhat unfair. Al-Maliki, though clearly a sectarian figure, has no independent power base, and no real armed force under his command. He sits astride a fractious government coalition of fiercely competitive factions, ideologues, and heavily armed militias -- each seeking their own advantage. His recent forays into neighboring Iran and Syria were less of an expression of affinity for these neighbors than they were driven by his need to strengthen his weak domestic position.

Blaming the failure to achieve national reconciliation on al-Maliki may score some political points at home, but makes little sense. He is in no position to force the stronger Kurdish groups to surrender their decision to expand the area further south and secure their independence. Nor is he in a position to control the armed Shi'a factions who will give little ground to the once-powerful and now disenfranchised Sunni tribes.

In reality, the failures that Petraeus and Crocker will point to belong not with al-Maliki but squarely on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and its occupant. It is the failure of the Bush administration to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group to pursue a comprehensive diplomatic initiative that has contributed to the disfunctionalities at work in Iraq today.

30,000 troops cannot hold Iraq together or end its civil war. Nor can one-on-one U.S. meetings with Iran or Syria, or limited U.S. cooperation with Saudi Arabia, bring about national reconciliation in Iraq.

Creating a regional security framework involving all of Iraq's neighbors and ceding political and eventual military control to the United Nations is way forward to national dialogue, and a way out of the current quagmire.

This will not be discussed on September 11. Instead, there will be gamesmanship, with moves countering other moves, buying time for a failed policy in a war that will only continue.

Comments

[moetheturk]

Just had to say it... General Betrayus

[Richardini]

How wearisome the gamesmanship played by our politicians! What words on blogs will make the smallest dent in the wall of tyrannical power which the bastard Bush wields? We can talk until we are blue in the face and he does what he pleases. He believes only what he wants to and if anyone in the inner circle of clowns dares to suggest a change in his tactics, you may rest assured that his ass is on the way out. The elected president of Iraq, Nouri el Maliki, is definitely going down. Mark my words. He is the number one scapegoat and his ass is grass. The only thing is when and I'll bet it will be pretty damned soon.

[bobh]

NYT reported yesterday that the real "surge" in Iraq over the period of the troop buildup has been in the number of fleeing Iraqi refugees. Did the heightened military activity just drive more Iraqis from their homes?

[richsmith]

We are now awaiting the coming of the magi, or perhaps better said, the coming of the soothsayers, the anointed ones who will tell us what the future holds for Iraq and for the world. Will Congress in its wisdom allow these clairvoyants to bring with them a ram to be eviscerated, right there on the floor of Congress, scarifying his entrails with which those wise warriors will foretell the future. What a profound and wondrous ritual it will be, performed for the benefit of the chosen one and to his acolytes, those retired and yet to retire, as they pass into their glory, to the adulation of their subjects, their subjects' children, and their children’s' children, forever to be praised and honored for their heroic stand against evil.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Zogby,

I have to strongly disagree with your contention that withdraw of U.S. forces is not the best course of action.

Not to withdraw yesterday is a ticking time bomb wait to explode in our faces.

America's best security interests depend on withdraw.

As one would not send firefighters into a inferno, that had no chance of being contained, sometimes one has to allow the fire to burn itself out.

I would also add the presents of U.S. military personnel is more like throwing gas on the fire.

Agape.

[Steamboater]

Preventing a "precipitous" withdrawal is just a euphemism for, we stay in Iraq forever. Obama, Clinton, Zogby et al are fatally wrong. Leaving a residual force in Iraq puts our people in worse danger than they are now. All troops need to leave Iraq and leave the Iraqies to solve their own problems, whether that be peacefully or through murder. That's their business; we've had enough of it. Sure, Bush has botched everything but Maliki doesn't want to share power and has no intention of doing so. If the Iraqies want to go at it even worse than they are now after we leave, they can drown in their own oil as far as I'm concerned. There's never going to be a democracy there because these people are incapable of producing one. No more Americans should have to die for this phoney vision of a democratic Iraq that Bush has.

[Rowland]

Al Gore said of our objective in Iraq, “To get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share — including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance — to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there.”

It's plain the attempt to get Iraq to pass the Hydrocarbon Law is not happening and the Sharing Agreements will not happen. The Unity Gov. there is reaffirming an oil production agreement with China.

It's proving true that the Shia cannot be depended upon to share revenues with the Sunnis so that the civil war will rage on whether we are there or not but certainly a bloodbath if we are not there.

For these reasons, to carry out Mr. Gore’s approach, it will be necessary to tilt in favor of Sunni control of the oil revenues because they will have to share the money with the Shia and Kurds to get the oil out of the ground. This can be done by re-deploying our troops to the six oil pipeline terminals out of the country and patrolling by air along the borders to prevent oil exports by truck. Also the banking must be controlled to assure that the oil is not pirated away from Sunni control.

To offset this unstable condition, the Shia and Kurds must control the reconstruction, reparations and infrastructure rebuilding so that down the road, there really is a nation there with enough balance to suppress the insurgency and civil war.

The re-deployment must be coordinated with the UN so that American greed is ultimately removed from the equation. The object of the UN involvement is to get the US out; first from the interior of the country and then from the re-deployment.

If there is no attempt to restore the balance of the status quo ante, any withdrawal will be bloody and will prevent the United States from recovering its composure around the world for years to come.

[Novista]

To some, "it is clear that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will only make things worse."

Some of us draw different conclusions. Maybe 'stay the course' should be replaced with 'stay the curse ( of US occupation)'. Or hindsight may say: "and loose the dogs of war" should have really read "and lose the dogs of war" ...

Yes, we brought Iraq 'democracy' and deposed "a brutal tyrant'. But, as Iraqi children's doctor Maryam said: "If you didn't oppose Saddam, you had nothing to worry about ... Shia and Sunni lived side by side peacefully­."

Nonetheless, we brought them liberation from the tyrant -- the outcome of which was their 'democratic government' which is falling apart, unleashed sectarian violence, enhanced the rise of al-Qaeda, a reconstruction of such incompetence that the infrastructure is still wrecked, our improvements fall apart after six months, if they are even finished at all by no-bid cost-plus contractors.

And now, the biggest single incident since the start of the war: 500 dead and 1,500 injured in one coordinated suicide attack -- this is "improvement" or maybe "turning another corner"???

Tell you what: let's send some congresscritter over there, no one meets him at the airport. He fends for himself for a few days among the Iraqi people. If he survives to return home and gives a positive report, I might buy a few talking points.

[TRYKER]

To some, "it is clear that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will only make things worse."

There is no proof whatever that this statement is true. The admin has been trumpeting this line and its sure to be untrue if they say it.

According to Iraqis, they can take care of matters and want us out.
Odd isn't it, American citizens don't want the military there, Iraqi citizens don't want the US military there, so whats the problem?
Those freedom fighters that have been "insurging" against the occupiers will be able to go home and begin remaking their lives.

When is anyone going to directly ask Bush, will you leave if you don't get oil contracts signed? Is that all you are really waiting for Mr. Bush? How do you think the American people feel about you getting Americans killed to get oil contracts?

[Sundialsvc4]

So let me see if I've got this straight. After lying to the United Nations, then pushing the United Nations out of the way, now we want to cuddle-up to the United Nations to exercise .. quote .. "military control?"

Sure, we know that the Al-Maliki is "toast," and I'm sure that this point is not lost upon him either. After all, he saw the American puppet of two iterations previous hanging at the end of a rope. We know what General-P is doomed to say. And we have also been told that the only mistake that we made in Vietnam is to end it. Gotcha.

What we =need= is true American leadership of the sort that does NOT believe that the oil resources underneath the sands of a much smaller nation are "only a pushover away." A leadership that also does NOT believe that their own country and countrymen are "a means to an end."

You do not have The Oil. You are not going to GET The Oil. (In fact, you have probably persuaded them to give away the oil to China. Good move.) If you institute the draft and start shipping conscripted soldiers over there to get shot-up in your deserts, you are S-T-I-L-L not going to get The Oil.

My question is this: lives and breathes there ANY leader in Washington who is NOT fixated with "The Oil?"

I didn't think so.

Let me say this to all the so-called power brokers in DC:

As long as you continue to be determined to run your bloody hands through the cesspool of your own greed, why don't you just leave the other people out of it? The soldiers, the 18-25 year olds (or is it going to be 18-42 year olds this time?) .. in fact, everybody but your own miserable selves. YOU GO. Take YOUR sons and daughters with you. Leave your bulletproof vests behind you in the Green Zone.

Can't do that? Why not?

[scooperss]

Agreed. And a vote for the presidential front runners (or who we're told are the front runners) is a vote for the same old thing.

[Herrington]

Bush is running out of time. Cheney’s objective, having a puppet government that would sign away billions of dollars to American oil interests through highly favorable exploration contracts, is evaporating under intense U.S. and Iraqi opposition to the occupation. Oil contracts are why we are there and BushCo will hang on to that objective until the last fingernail is broken.

A huge embassy and permanent military bases are being built to solidify control of a puppet government that can be used against the interest of its people and to pose a threat to regional powers through proxy military action.

The Iraqis know this. They are squabbling with each other over the oil revenues. The sectarian divide exacerbates the problem and they can gain no traction because there is no compromise in Dick Cheney’s soul. Cheney wants the oil contracts on his terms and has no compunction about holding Iraq hostage to civil war until he gets it. Really? We have had four and a half years to deal with this insurgency and civil war and have done nothing but keep the pot boiling.

This is the coldest calculation for profits I have ever seen.

We are the largest market for oil in the world and the oil producers know that they cannot afford to alienate their best market. It happened in 1973. What is at stake is not supply it is profit margin. So all the pundits are full of shit. In order to pacify the region, we need to withdraw the U.S. oil companies from the Iraqi political equation.

What is at stake, you see, is how much money the Iraqis are willing to accept to be our regional puppet. As long as that chip is on the table, the strife, complicated by sectarian jalousies and vendettas, will continue.

[thgy]

Herrington your grasp the situation shows remarkable understanding. Your assessment of Cheney is so apt I think it should be repeated as often as possible. I think you must know the sob personally.

"The sectarian divide exacerbates the problem and they can gain no traction because there is no compromise in Dick Cheney’s soul. Cheney wants the oil contracts on his terms and has no compunction about holding Iraq hostage to civil war until he gets it. Really? We have had four and a half years to deal with this insurgency and civil war and have done nothing but keep the pot boiling.

This is the coldest calculation for profits I have ever seen."

[Herrington]

Thanks thgy. "know the sob personally" yeah, apparently so do you.

[Budh]

The date 9/11 is very significant, wonder who chose that particular day for the Senate hearing, the White House?

[hoopoe]

propaganda theatre

[AFCOL]

Ah, so much bitterness for the possibility of good news. We certainly don't want that in a war that had such strong support from both democrats and republicans, do we. We seem to want bad news...no, we relish every incident. Makes us smile. Gives us a chance to tell Bush I told you so. Gives us a forum to rail about Lieberman. Oh, we always throw in a few words about our concern for the troops. That's a standard. But when some party member even begins to suggest improvement in Iraq, they are black-balled. For we respect opinions as long as they match ours. I sure would like to see the party that reads more books, act like they do. But until then, let's keep the sheep in a tight herd and stampede anyone who even alludes to the possibility of good news.

[bumpersticker]

With all due respect, I don't believe this is about cheering bad news so we can zap GW Bush for the sport of it. There is a sense in many of us that a war was started - and many people diplaced, crippled, and killed - for reasons other than the ones given. There is a sense of evil about a deception at the highest levels, and we want that evil out of our country and out of our lives.

Look no further than the report on Huff Post awhile back that one of the benchmarks was for 75% of the oil to go to American oil companies. Pelosi verified the story. Exactly what has that benchmark got to do with the Al Quaida/Fre­edom/Democ­racy propaganda spoon fed to our citizens? And exactly why does GW Bush plan to build the largest US Embassy in the world in Baghdad? Sounds like ownership and a misbegotten trophy.

[thgy]

- and many people displaced, crippled, and killed -
I wish someone could daily walk through an Iraqi neighborhood to record the chaos and destruction we have forced the Iraqi people to live in. Their hopes for a future for themselves are gone, their hopes for a future for their children and grandchildren are gone.
We look at the destruction in the background of the few pictures we see, if we look, and think that the Iraqi people have always lived like that. That is our contribution to the national denial of our responsibility for the death and destruction that is going on.
Our president, vice president and their advisors are nuts - just listen to Kristol. Our congress, democrat or republican, will do nothing (either because they support the president or because they fear the republicans more than they fear us who are opposed to this war and more).
And WE sit in some sort of daydream, jaws aslack, while the Iraqi people, men, women and, to our everlasting shame children, are killed, horribly wounded or orphaned (how many child predators are taking advantage of that?).
America go outside and bang your head on your SUV till you wake up!
We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace. -Walter Mondale

[IMHIowaO]

How low must the bar be set when even the "possibility" of good news is something to get excited about? Our government has been following pretty much the same strategy now for 5 years with (not suprising to more and more of us) the same result. If all we hear in September is the need to continue what we're currently doing because the report card shows a D+ instead of a D, few people are going to feel it is the best choice.

[Dap]

))))))))))­))))))))))­) SOPHISM ((((((((((­((((((((((­(

[Phrank]

Why don't you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and hop right back on that turnip truck that you just fell off of. If you want to stay with thee reality based community, here is the first facts you should try to understand. There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION in Iraq, only political The surge made a political reconciliation far more difficult; therefore it is a FAILURE. The reason we sacrifised 500 additional lives was to make "time and security" for a political settlement The increase in the number of troops had nothing to do with any success in Anbar where we CUT our forces. (The true lessen of the surge, when we leave things improve) You and the other parrots of the Party Line are conflating the the "surge", the increase in troop numbers with coincidental changes not related to an increase in numbers. As any member of the reality based community will tell you, there have been numerous claims of success over the past five years. None have lasted and to declare "progress" so rapidly is, as Dr. Johnson said of second marriges, "the triumph of hope over experience" Phrannk

[CHARLESTHETENTH]

Does anyone really expect anything other than a positive, surge working assessment from Gen.Patrae­us?. After all he does work and report to his Commander in Chief and his loyalty to this administrations so far is without question. It boggles the mind that so much spin is put on his appearance with anticipation building for what is obviously predicable. We don't need to wait till September when we see very little change if any happening now...a few more weeks will not make any difference. The Bush machine will be hard at work to convince the American people that we are on our way to Victory in Iraq..just need a little more time..and unfortunately many American people will buy into it. This administration sure knows how to work the American people no matter how much negative press and comments and feedback they receive...­no surprise they will prevail!!

[Rescisco]

Nobody expects anything but justifications for staying with the surge. That script was written months ago and the "way forward" will continue toward the deeper end of the pool.

[mommamia526]

A regional security framework of all of Iraq's neighbors? Hm. I believe that Iran and Saudi Arabia do not have the same or even identical goals in the neighborhood. In fact, I have read that Saudi Arabia has a little bit of a problem with Iran's quest for dominance in the area. And then there are all these groups, like Al Quaeda operating outside of official boundaries. And Hezbullah. Palestinians can also not be ruled, and they can not rule themselves. Yet, there are *Palestinians*, new ones, from Iraq, where they have been at least 100 years, now in tent settlements. There is no government in Iraq. Nothing. So, who are the Iraqui neighbors going to negotiate and deal with? Pensylvania Avenue has opened a pandora's box, however that box was there already. The Middle East is in transition from tribalism into modern age, and they have not decided how to do that, especially not since a number of these tribes are really nomads, and not tied to boundaries, just to an area.

[LizM]

You don't really believe all that Maliki malarkey, do you?

Maliki isn't even the problem. The problem is that everyone seems to be operating on the mistaken premise that a strong central government will materialize in Iraq within the lifetime of anyone reading this post.

Oh, yeah...the­re's another problem, too...Pres­ident Bush and his foreign policy team don't understand the first thing about presidential leadership or what needs to be done to help facilitate a political accommodation in Iraq that will allow for the withdrawal of US forces without leaving chaos behind and the need to return at a later date.

And, I might add, the so called frontrunners among the Democratic presidential candidates don't understand the issue much better.

As for the Petraeus/Crocker appearance before Congress, I would advise you keep your attention properly focused on Senator Biden - you might just learn something.

[Dap]

I would advise *You* keep your attention properly focused on Govenor Bill Richardson - you might just learn something.

[LizM]

Hey Dap!

No, I don't think so, and I'll try to explain why.

Governor Richardson has so obviously not thought out his plan for ending the war. If he did, he would realize, number one, that if he were to succeed in pulling ALL US forces out of Iraq he would have to also pull ALL US civilians (not to mention all of the Iraqis there who have been assisting the Americans - unless he would hang all of them out to dry) out of the Green Zone - he never explains how he would realistically do this.

He also would have to revise his timetable of several months because NO one who is in a position to understand what a withdrawal of this nature would entail agrees with him. It just cannot practically be done in the timeframe the Governor proposes.

Number two, the Governor wants all US troops out as a prerequisite to diplomatic action. This is the most incredible part of his plan. How does he envision a diplomatic effort taking place as the whole country and region slips into a downward spiral of civil war and sectarian/tribal violence? Until he explains exactly how this will happen, his "plan" deserves no attention whatsoever because it is not based in reality.

Perhaps he will carefully re-think his Iraq strategy but his recent post on this site would seem to indicate otherwise.

Senator Biden is the leader among ALL presidential candidates on foreign policy and national security, and he is the only one with the depth and breadth of experience AND a proven track record of providing the wise and intelligent leadership that will be required to radically change course, at home and abroad.

[eniobob]

Well its friday night and I already have a headache and the weekend is just starting,getting my fill of the evening opinons about the situation in Iraq,starting with the fact that (16) of our countrys agenceys agree that this thing is in bad shape,A senior republican senator of great respect and itegrity has suggested bringing some troops home for xmas,A "retireing"general saying next year we should cut the active duty troops in Iraq by one half,By sunday if I sat and tryed to absorb all the back an forth my head would explode.So I think I'll quit while I'm ahead and just log in to the Huff spot on monday and see what I missed.