When it comes to the short-term future of Iraq, it’s all about expectations.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) has one idea in mind…
SCHIEFFER: Well, you said the other day — and I’m going to use your words here — the handwriting is on the wall, that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it. What did you mean by that, Senator?
MCCONNELL: Well, by that, I mean the surge is going to come to an end, obviously. It’s now — the buildup in troops is now complete. It will obviously go on over the summer. I think everybody anticipates that there’s going to be a new strategy in the fall. I don’t think we’ll have the same level of troops, in all likelihood, that we have now. The Iraqis will have to step up, not only on the political side, but on the military side, to a greater extent. We’re not there forever. I think they understand that. And the time to properly evaluate that, it strikes me, is in September.
…and Gen. David Petraeus has another.
Today on Fox News Sunday…Petraeus admitted that he didn’t expect the “surge” to be done by September, the date set for Petraeus’ supposedly make-it or break-it report to Congress. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether he believed “the job would be done by the surge by September,” Petraeus responded, “I do not, no.” Watch it:
Asked in a follow up question if that meant “enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008,” Petraeus refused to answer. “Again, premature right now,” said Petraeus. “A number of options out there. And I’m not about to announce what we might do here today, I’m afraid.”
Petraeus then went on to endorse the “Korea model” for Iraq, which envisions keeping troops in the country for decades. “[T]ypically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years,” said Petraeus. “I think in general that that’s probably a fairly realistic assessment,” Petraeus said of the Korea comparison.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has one set of expectations…
Actually, we completely reject the word “pressure.” We always tell them that there are two things you should avoid: That word [pressure], because the Iraqi government is a sovereign government, and giving timetables, because timetables are harmful for them and for us. When the U.S. defense secretary said, “We want to stay for 50 years in Iraq,” this had unpleasant consequences because this issue is the Iraqi government’s business.
…and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) has another.
Smith’s loneliness may be assuaged in September, when Petraeus reports on the effects of the troop surge. “There is,” Smith says, “a high expectation that we” — Republican senators — “will be able to vote for something different in September.” And: “I can,” he says, “think of a dozen Republican senators who will be with me in September.”
What’s that Green Day song? Wake me up when September ends.
Jonathan Alter believes Dems are struggling in the political debate over war policy, in part because they’re not nearly as good as Republicans at coming up with bumper-sticker slogans.
Iraq is President Bush’s war, but the Democrats are quickly getting tagged with some blame for it. One of the reasons Congress is in such bad odor — less popular even than Bush in recent polls — is that Democrats look feckless on how to proceed in Iraq, and not just because they lack the votes to cut off funding. Are they neo-isolationists, determined to exit the region as soon as possible? Democrats like Pennsylvania freshman Rep. Patrick Murphy, who saw ground action as an Army captain, insist not. They want to get out of Iraq and get tough on Al Qaeda at the same time. But the idea isn’t getting through.
Last week’s attack on what remained of the Golden Mosque in Samarra — one of the most revered shrines of Iraq’s Shiites — was apparently another sign that the organization known as Al Qaeda in Iraq remains a serious threat. The bombing (along with the violence in Gaza) was also a reminder that Democrats could still be in trouble on national security in 2008.
Politically, the “war on terror” continues to be a useful GOP bumper sticker, whatever John Edwards’s objections. Instead of bemoaning this, Democrats need their own bumper sticker — some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn’t make them look like surrender monkeys. Without it, they have no coherent policy.
To help Dems along, Alter suggests “strategic redeployment” isn’t muscular enough when it comes to sloganeering, and recommends “pull and strike” — the U.S. policy would “pull” American troops from the streets of Baghdad, but “strike” at terrorist targets in the region.
I suppose that’s as good a catchphrase as any, but I think Alter’s broader argument is off-base. He argues that Democrats have the right policy, but it’s not “getting through” to the rest of the country. I disagree — they have the right policy, it’s getting through just fine, but Dems are coming up short executing their own strategy.
Indeed, Alter suggests what’s standing between Democrats and broader acceptance of their policy prescription is “some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn’t make them look like surrender monkeys.” Alter’s heart is in the right place, but he’s missing a key point here — the public has already accepted the Democratic war policy. The problem isn’t in framing; Dems’ poll numbers started to sag only after they gave in and gave the Bush White House the war funding bill the president demanded. The sales pitch was irrelevant.
I don’t mean to pick on Alter; he seems to be right when it comes to the need for a dramatic change in policy. But I think he’s fallen into the same belief that tends to dominate the DC conventional wisdom — that the Dems have fallen short in convincing Americans that it’s time to withdraw from Iraq. That’s just not so; Americans already want out and are waiting for Washington to catch up.
Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that more than four years after the fall of Baghdad, the “United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Husseinâs alleged weapons of mass destruction.” Everyone fully recognizes that there are no weapons to be found, but bureaucratic hurdles keep inspectors where they aren’t needed. “The inspectors acknowledge that their chief task — disarming Iraq — was largely fulfilled long ago. But, they say, their masters at the U.N. Security Council have been unable to agree to either shut down their effort or revise their mandate to make their work more relevant,” the Post explained.
Two weeks later, good news: the pointless hunt is nearing an end.
The search for Saddam Husseinâs weapons of mass destruction appears close to an official conclusion, several years after their absence became a foregone one.
The United States and Britain have circulated a new proposal to the members of the United Nations Security Council to âterminate immediately the mandatesâ of the weapons inspectors. Staff meetings on the latest proposal have already taken place, and officials say that the permanent Council members, each of whom has veto power, seem ready to let the inspection group â the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission â meet its end.
Two weeks ago, Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, Iraqâs deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said, âThis is really absurd. Weâre approaching five years now of this exercise in futility.”
Finally, the exercise appears ready to come to a merciful conclusion — several years too late.
Today’s Must Read: sifting through Sy Hersh’s latest in The New Yorker — on Don Rumsfeld, the CIA black sites still in operation, and the special ops the Pentagon doesn’t want anyone to know about.
Petraeus says that conditions on the ground in Iraq will not have improved enough by September to justify a troop drawdown. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Morning Roundup.
Federal grand jury investigating Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-AK) ties to corrupt Alaskan oil company.
Missed the Sunday talk shows? Not to worry. We do our best to puzzle out just what exactly to expect from the Iraq progress report coming in September in todayâs Sunday Show Roundup edition of TPMtv …
Edwards blasts General Petraeus for suggesting long-term presence in Iraq. Will other Dems follow?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) looks into the White House’s use of outside email addresses and doesn’t like what he sees.
The destruction of Karl Rove’s and other White House officials’ emails, he says, is “the most serious breach of the Presidential Records Act in the 30-year history of the law.”
What happens when Congress tells a federal agency to do one thing and then President Bush, appending one of his many, many signing statements to a bill, says another?
A government report suggests that in some cases, agencies might be following the president.