Give it a Couple of Months

Mike Crowley reports on a mystery lunch he attended yesterday with Republican Senator X:

On Iraq, this senator said he expects that, come September and the Petraeus-Crocker report, the White House will announce "a transition to a new approach." He thinks that will involve a non-trivial drawdown of troops, and a returned emphasis to training Iraqi forces, though he wasn't too clear beyond that. He also said such a shift would head off any possible collapse in congressional GOP support for the war.

I say: Eh. I feel like I've heard about this imminent drawdown before. My sense is that it was going to be executed around mid-2004 in order to shore up the GOP position before the fall elections. And, sure, their position is worse now than it was then. But Bush was actually on the ballot. Kevin Drum seems to be a believer on the somewhat odd grounds that "Petraeus and Crocker plainly won't be able to report any political progress in Iraq. After all, there hasn't been any yet, and the Iraqi parliament is on vacation for the next month. What's more, even on the military front Petraeus will be unable to claim anything but the slimmest progress."

That seems clearly wrong to me. The genius thing about the facts is that they can support almost anything. You can say. "We've seen exciting signs of progress in Iraq. Describe one tactical military success, describe another, do so in great detail, here's a third, etc. Follow Pollack and O'Hanlon in discussing morale and subject factors. Describe another tactical military success in some detail. Talk about your hopes and dreams for the future. This part goes on and on for pages. On the political front, progress has been more limited, but there are some signs of progress and I'm going to list two of them right now." Bam! Optimistic report, why do you hate America? Or, you could look at the same facts and dwell on the ways in which tactical military successes are irrelevant and the political situation is worse than ever. So far, every time the Bush administration has reported on Iraq it's been with relentlessly upbeat spin and I see no reason to think that'll change.

Comments

Moreover, the report will of course be delivered and discussed in Very Serious and Measured Tones. Calamity will be whitewashed into Worrying Trends, so as to reflect Balance with the inevitable Modest Successes. We can't have anything jumping out too much, otherwise it wouldn't come across as Serious.

Posted by Bill | August 2, 2007 8:18 AM

"He thinks that will involve a non-trivial drawdown of troops"

I agree that they're going to have a "non-trivial" drawdown of troops at some point, but I think that will only be to pre-surge levels.

So we'll end up with 120,000 troops in 2008, which is the same level we had in 2006.

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 8:22 AM

U.S. aggression in Iraq is criminal. Plainly criminal. The U.S. is killing, maiming and torturing civilians. It has destroyed vital infrastructure necessary for the most basic of human living in a civilized society. Schools, hospitals, power and water facilities and transportation and communication networks are crippled. The enviroment is polluted for generations with depleted uranium munitions. Previously pacified (albeit by a decidedly dictatorial ruler) sectarian and religious divisions now rage, erupting in violence and bloodshed. All these crimes are compounded by the undeniable fact there is no coherent plan to address any of these issues competently or in a timely manner. Can someone make a plausible argument as to why Bush and many others in his administration shouldn't be put on trial for all these crimes and hanged if found guilty?

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM

Gee, Steve. You'll go far with that kind of rhetoric.

Think I'll just skip the challenge to make a "plausible argument".

Posted by Pug | August 2, 2007 8:44 AM

"The genius thing about the facts is that they can support almost anything."

Then how do you know your view of the situation is the correct one?

Sk

Posted by Sk | August 2, 2007 8:51 AM

Steve D,

There is no plausible argument, other than principled opposition to the death penalty. Pug is right, though -- using Matt's comments section to speak the truth about U.S. war crimes in Iraq is no way to "go far," whatever that means. Guess you're screwed...

Posted by Gator90 | August 2, 2007 9:20 AM

steve -

As right as you may be (and I do agree with you), you've already lost 3/4ths of Americans with your first sentence. I know how much some people hate the idea of compromising their rhetoric, but if you really want to influence people and events, you might want to consider doing so.

Persuasion almost never occurs as the result of hectoring.

Posted by Fishbone McGonigle | August 2, 2007 9:23 AM

The Republican Senators can read the polls and they see September as the point where they must change electoral strategy. They must oppose the war or the Republican party will be crushed. Bush is irrelevant. The dwindling power of the Republican party is what's important. They need to "stop the bleeding". Not, of course, the bleeding of humans in the war, but their own power.

Posted by Thomas Tobiason | August 2, 2007 9:24 AM

To those hectoring steve's hectoring rhetoric:

You don't end criminal behavior without acknowledging that it is in fact criminal. And, the truth always wins out in the end.

Typical craven Democratic political positioning. The way you win over 3/4 of the American public is by taking a fucking stand for what's right.

Posted by Bill | August 2, 2007 9:37 AM

"Bam! Optimistic report, why do you hate America?"

Classic.

Posted by carsick | August 2, 2007 9:39 AM

"The genius thing about the facts is that they can support almost anything."

Then how do you know your view of the situation is the correct one?

Because
"Facts are stupid things." -Saint Ronnie Reagan

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/279.html

Posted by Jeff S. | August 2, 2007 9:40 AM

You'll never get anywhere calling them concentration camps and the ovens and final solution genocide - you just lost "the good Germans" with that kind of inflammatory rhetoric. There. Thought I would just bring the thread around to Godwin sooner rather than later.

Posted by reallygonecat | August 2, 2007 10:15 AM

Interesting points about Steve's rhetoric. I agree of course that talk of war crimes etc. won't go anywhere with the public.

But rather than scolding Steve for his rhetoric, let me just put this out there. Over the last 20 years, conservatives did a good job of putting whacko ideas out there so that over time they would pull the dialog in a particular direction. Privatizing social security and a flat tax are two ideas that come to mind. There were think tanks and nobodies advocating these things for a while and now they are mainstream enough to be debated as real policy ideas.

Mainstream conservatives, as far as I remember, didn't support this stuff. But they also didn't shout down the far righters putting it out there. They remained silent. And that helped allow the axis of what is moderate move in the direction of the far righters.

All I'm suggesting is that maybe we on the left should be a little slower to criticize and chastize and distance ourselves from the most leftwing rhetoric. Especially where, as here, a lot of us actually do believe that there are war crimes involved in this administration's iraq policies, we just also recognize the futility in making that a central policy position of the left.

So when lefties say stuff that is not politically feasible because it's too far left, maybe we should just keep quiet and let the rightwingers attack them. Thoughts?

Posted by Liberal Chris | August 2, 2007 10:34 AM

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM:"U.S. aggression in Iraq is criminal. Plainly criminal. The U.S. is killing, maiming and torturing civilians."

What aggression? Where exactly is the US maiming and torturing anyone? Or even murdering anyone? The people doing that are America's enemies you may have noticed. Whatever happened in Abu Ghraib, people went to jail for it.

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM:"It has destroyed vital infrastructure necessary for the most basic of human living in a civilized society. Schools, hospitals, power and water facilities and transportation and communication networks are crippled."

You mean that the First Bush did that in the first Iraq War with subsequent damage by the Clinton administration and sanctions? Bush Junior has spent billions restoring Iraqi infrastructure. What damage is being done to it now is being done by the insurgents.

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM:"The enviroment is polluted for generations with depleted uranium munitions."

Well no. Depleted uranium is a mild heavy metal toxin and there is little evidence it is anything more.

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM:"Previously pacified (albeit by a decidedly dictatorial ruler) sectarian and religious divisions now rage, erupting in violence and bloodshed."

Pacified in the sense that he murdered so many people they were afraid to stick their heads out? That sounds like an interesting policy to follow. Would you support the US following precisely that policy?

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM:"All these crimes are compounded by the undeniable fact there is no coherent plan to address any of these issues competently or in a timely manner."

Although of course the fact there was no plan proves there was no crime. If Bush intended to plunder and oppress, he would have had a proper military garrison in place.

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 8:23 AM:"Can someone make a plausible argument as to why Bush and many others in his administration shouldn't be put on trial for all these crimes and hanged if found guilty?"

Apart from the obvious one that these claims are all delusions and factually wrong? Not really.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 10:40 AM

Liberal Chris,
Your right. The best way to do it is to force the right to attack steve and then say well I don't agree with steve on the specifics but his lager point about illegality is right. Bush attacked a country that didn't attack us.
Rince repeat.

The mistake mainstream liberals make with the left is that they join the right wing morons in attacking it instead of splitting the difference and attacking the right. DLC, Brookings, all sorts of 'institutional' thinkers have encouraged this failing rhetorical strategy and I am glad that we seem to be moving away from it.

Posted by Northern Observer | August 2, 2007 10:46 AM

Oh, all of you guys are soooo right- Steve's views are so inconvenient, and they just might infuriate all of those people out there who aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway.

In fact, Steve's position has only one thing to recommend it- it just happens to be the truth.

When oh when are the Democrats going to learn that three quarters of the voters in this country are sick of being lied to? Those who advocate a watered-down version of Republican lies are dooming us all.

Bush's aggression against Iraq was a war crime.
If we do not stand up against it, we are complicit. We may, in the end, be able to accomplish little; that little, however, is immensely superior to lending our tacit support to this abomination.

Posted by Carl from L.A, | August 2, 2007 11:02 AM

Steve is more right than Pug or the others who criticize him.

I dislike people who claim to be somehow better experts on "public opinion" than I may be. Do not confuse cynicism with insight. People know that Bush has behaved criminally; they just don't know exactly how.

The idea that maybe the US shouldn't have invaded a foreign nation that wasn't threatening us at the time is not so bizarre or unthinkable to people that they will all (or 3/4, as claimed) reject it immediately. Thanks for the courage of your convictions, guys! But, in the future, please either stand up for what you believe or step out of the way. Holding the public in contempt is not a viable political attitude.

HeiGou: yes, if the good little Iraqis would simply submit to our authoritay then they wouldn't be having the problems they are having, would they? We still invaded their country and there are still over a half-million dead because of that. Comparing the current level of carnage in Iraq with what happened in the 90s is delusional. This has been well-documented before. Take any one quantifiable element of the economy, for example availability of electricity. Iraq is in the dark ages now compared to the 90s. "Junior" has been bombing the crap out of the country for four+years, and his "reconstruction" efforts have been run through politically connected allies who have not even done a good job with what they've been tasked to do, in spite of the generous no-bid contracts they have been "awarded".

Oh, but if I say this kind of thing, "people" will be "alienated", so I have to pretend Bush isn't a complete fuck-up. That's the path to "credibility" - saying the same inane tripe that everybody else is saying. Then, four years later, you can defend the lack of intellectual seriousness that a mynah bird approach to political discussion carries by saying "that's what everybody else was saying at the time!"

I would rather say things like "Um, guys, we have no reason to think Iraq has WMDs" when it matters - in the Fall of 2002 and Spring of 2003. I cannot fathom why people pretend to be serious when they dismiss confrontational rhetoric out of hand.

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM

The thing that will be important to counter, We've seen exciting signs of progress in Iraq. Describe one tactical military success, describe another, do so in great detail, here's a third, etc. is to remind people (somehow!) that a few anecdotes do not equal data.

Posted by mk | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM

Steve, thank you for your point about war crimes. Even if no one is going to level with most of the American public, I think it's important that we try to understand and write about what is going on.

Of course the victor gets to write the history books and also to decide who receives a Liberty Medal and who goes on trial.

Posted by Ralph | August 2, 2007 11:11 AM

Matt's got this one dead on.

You see, everything's been just about to turn the corner or get better in another 6 months (Atrios' beloved F.U.) or so. Then we can see where we REALLY are and make plans from there. To do so now would be foolhardy and, gasp, irresponsible, not to mention completely unserious.

You know, sort of like starting an illegal war based on misinformation and b.s. without any plan for the subsequent occupation and inevitable sectarian violence that would no doubt occur once the iron-fisted dictator we invented and armed was removed, not to mention the training and recruitment opportunities it would create for our real enemies in the Middle East.

So we can't leave, at least not while Shrub's in office. He's never cleaned up any of his own messes - why start now? That's what Poppy's for. Or maybe the gullible Democrat who wins the Presidency in 2008. You all know that losing Iraq will be the fault of the Dems, somehow, some way.

Watch for it. And when it happens, like the nonsense occuring now that I and so many other dirty unserious hippies predicted before the war, I'll get to once more say:

I told you so.

Posted by speedtats | August 2, 2007 11:29 AM

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM:"if the good little Iraqis would simply submit to our authoritay then they wouldn't be having the problems they are having, would they?"

Well no. They would be well on their way to being a medium-income, tolerant, democratic, peaceful society.

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM:"We still invaded their country and there are still over a half-million dead because of that."

Well no. America did not invade in any rational sense. It liberated. And the Lancet figure is nonsense. A lot of people are dead but even then mostly despite the US, not because of.

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM:"Comparing the current level of carnage in Iraq with what happened in the 90s is delusional. This has been well-documented before."

OK. I'll make sure I don't. However Ms Albright did make that whole 600,000 dead babies was worth it comment didn't she? A different sort of carnage.

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM:"Take any one quantifiable element of the economy, for example availability of electricity. Iraq is in the dark ages now compared to the 90s."

Despite billions of dollars going into rebuilding capacity. They are not in the dark because of the US but because of the insurgents.

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM:""Junior" has been bombing the crap out of the country for four+years, and his "reconstruction" efforts have been run through politically connected allies who have not even done a good job with what they've been tasked to do, in spite of the generous no-bid contracts they have been "awarded"."

I doubt that Junior has bombed anything since his days in the Air Guard. Nor do I expect that the US Air Force has bombed much since the formal war ended. What would be the point? Falluja aside. I agree they have not done well although it is hard to see how the US could run a country like Iraq. Which does not change the fact that the original claim was wrong.

Posted by RickD | August 2, 2007 11:10 AM:"Oh, but if I say this kind of thing, "people" will be "alienated", so I have to pretend Bush isn't a complete fuck-up. That's the path to "credibility" - saying the same inane tripe that everybody else is saying."

Actually any sensible comment is hardly going to alienate anyone. Say what you've said and you have a possibility of a debate. Say what Steve said and you don't. Bush is not a war criminal and neither are the vast majority of Americans serving in the Middle East.

Just remember what happened to Dukakis and Mondale. Even if you do not buy the moral argument, think of the practical one. The Democrats have to reach out beyond the cities and the East Coast. They need the South and the West. Accusing their sons of being torturers ain't going to help.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 11:38 AM

HeiGou apparently forgot his chlorproamzine today - his delusions are running away with him. His ignorance, however, is in full flower...

Posted by jjcomet | August 2, 2007 11:58 AM

HeiGou: "Nor do I expect that the US Air Force has bombed much since the formal war ended."

From December 24 2005 WaPO: "U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have surged this fall, jumping to nearly five times the average monthly rate earlier in the year, according to U.S. military figures.

Until the end of August, U.S. warplanes were conducting about 25 strikes a month. The number rose to 62 in September, then to 122 in October and 120 in November."

March 19, 2006: "In further Iraq news, Knight Ridder is reporting the US government has increased airstrikes by more than half in the last five months. According to military figures, US forces have dropped at least double the number of bombs on Iraqi cities than they did during the same period one year ago. This year, U.S. warplanes have struck at least 18 different cities."

AP, June 2007: "In the first 4 1/2 months of 2007, U.S. aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press...

At the same time, the number of civilian Iraqi casualties from U.S. airstrikes appears to have risen sharply...the rate of such reported civilian deaths appeared to climb steadily through 2006, averaging a few a month in early 2006, hitting some 40 a month by year's end and averaging more than 50 a month so far this year."

Any questions?

Posted by jjcomet | August 2, 2007 12:08 PM

Gee, if only someone had thought of that before the US undertook to, um, run Iraq.

Posted by Gator90 | August 2, 2007 12:09 PM

Oops, my last comment was in reference to HeiGou's remark that it is "hard to see how the US could run a country like Iraq."

Posted by Gator90 | August 2, 2007 12:11 PM

I remember my excitement as a child as my mother mixed Kool-Aid on a hot summer afternoon. I envy those adults that to this day still drink Kool-Aid with that childlike gusto! HeiGou, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, John McCain. Kool-Aid drinkers all. Life seems simpler, troublesome truths less vexing as they guzzle their sweet, candy colored elixir.

Posted by steve duncan | August 2, 2007 12:41 PM

HeiGou types so fast
does not see dead Iraqis
in early August

Posted by drip | August 2, 2007 1:01 PM

Hei Gou:

What aggression? Where exactly is the US maiming and torturing anyone? Or even murdering anyone? The people doing that are America's enemies you may have noticed. Whatever happened in Abu Ghraib, people went to jail for it.

Problem solved! Sure, we set up shop in Saddam's old torture palace and, um, tortured some people for fun, but "people went to jail for it"! Why can't the Iraqis see how good we are? Sure Hei Gou, "people" went to jail...just none of those responsible for implementing the policy. But I'm sure the Iraqis are too grateful to notice that.

You mean that the First Bush did that in the first Iraq War with subsequent damage by the Clinton administration and sanctions? Bush Junior has spent billions restoring Iraqi infrastructure. What damage is being done to it now is being done by the insurgents.

Because, because throwing money at a problem is exactly the same as fixing the problem! It all adds up! None of the money could have been wasted or misused...except by Iraqis of course.

Pacified in the sense that he murdered so many people they were afraid to stick their heads out? That sounds like an interesting policy to follow. Would you support the US following precisely that policy?

You mean, like we did for years? Did you complain about it when it was the policy? Did you complain that we enabled it?

Although of course the fact there was no plan proves there was no crime. If Bush intended to plunder and oppress, he would have had a proper military garrison in place.

It's called criminal negligence, fucktard.

Apart from the obvious one that these claims are all delusions and factually wrong? Not really.

The only justice for people like you would be to find yourself on the receiving end of what you're so complacent about. Blame the Iraqis! But you're correct, they're currently blowing each other up. If someone conquered the United States, destroyed our infrastructure, disbanded the military, and wiped a clean slate on our national and local governments, what kind of mischief do you think our largely provincial citizenry would be up to? Now imagine doing exactly that, on purpose, to a country with a thousand times more potential for sectarian conflict and NO history of democratic rule, and ask yourself where the fuck you get off blaming them for all of it. People like you sicken me...

Posted by Bill | August 2, 2007 2:01 PM

HeiGou, I commend you for taking on most of this board to defend another viewpoint. But I think you
have hitched your cart to the wrong horse.

Yes, Iraq would be much better off if insurgents weren't blowing stuff up. But do you understand that they see us as an invading army? Whether you agree with that assessment or not is irrelevant; that is what they think. So they are reacting as anyone would. As for the rest of the violence, our actions have unleashed an armed power struggle, both civil and religious. Yes, our actions. There is not enough space here for me to list the myriad ways, but I will cite one: shortly after Baghdad fell there was rampant looting in the streets. US military stood by and watched it happen. This is established fact. Under the Geneva Convention (not to mention common sense) an occupying army must provide for law and order. We manifestly did not do that, thus opening the way for others to fill the power vacuum.

In short, expecting the Iraqis to greet us with flowers was never realistic. You can wish they did, and say it would have been better if they had. But you know what they say about wishing...

Posted by Kilfarsnar | August 2, 2007 2:23 PM

The reason that we will not see a draw-down of troops, is beacuse the shrub won't let it happen. Even if some republican senators flip (not just retorically, but their votes also) the shrub will fight tooth and nail to keep doing whatever he wants.

There won't be a draw-down until Feb or March of 2009

Posted by Cheeto | August 2, 2007 2:40 PM

Re HeiGou "Pacified in the sense that he murdered so many people they were afraid to stick their heads out? That sounds like an interesting policy to follow. Would you support the US following precisely that policy?"
-------
Er.. isn't Bush doing so. Isn't that the "surge"?

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 3:40 PM

Re HeiGou: "America did not invade in any rational sense. It liberated"
--------
I guess that why they cheer us whenever we walk around the streets of Baghdad? Why they toss flowers? Why American officials don't hole up inside the Green Zone fortress but stroll unarmed and unguarded down the streets of west Baghdad?
That must be why we've taken no casualties since March 2003.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 3:48 PM

The report that General Petraus will give will argue that we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, just like we were told about Viet Nam. General Petraus will do General Westmoreland proud.

Posted by CaptainVideo | August 2, 2007 8:02 PM

"shortly after Baghdad fell there was rampant looting in the streets. US military stood by and watched it happen"

The U.S. lost the initiative in Iraq to the insurgents when the U.S. troops failed to stop the looting. This showed the Iraqis that the U.S. was not invincible and could be successfully opposed. It's been downhill in Iraq since then and things have now deteriorated to the point where nothing short of sending 500,000 troops in (which we do not have) and ruthlessly imposing strict martial law has any chance of reversing the decline. (Note: I am not advocating that we should do this if we could.)

We should never have engaged in an unprovoked war of agression against Iraq in the first place. But since we did it, we should at least have done it right. For example, having military police units standing by in Kuwait that would have been sent in to Bagdad to restore order as soon as the combat troops had defeated the Iraqi army could have stopped the looting. Rummy is the most incompetent Secretary of Defense the U.S. has ever had.

Posted by CaptainVideo | August 2, 2007 8:19 PM