How About Neither?

Jonathan Weisman and Karen DeYoung refer to the upcoming September reports on Iraq as "widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush's war strategy." But why should that be. Report or no report, Bush is still president, Democrats still have so many votes in congress, and fundamentally there's no reason for anything to change. In the next graf, they acknowledge this ("Lawmakers from both parties are growing worried that the report -- far from clarifying the United States' future in Iraq -- will only harden the political battle lines around the war") but the rest of their reporting on the hard-fought battles about the details of staging the report's presentation make it seem as if folks on the Hill really do see this as a make or break turning point.

But as we read yesterday, the reports are being written by the White House. This is, in my view, appropriate. Petraeus and Crocker work for Bush and it's always been silly to portray them as independent actors. But the point is that there's no independent assessment here -- the White House is going to make an official statement of the White House's assessment of the situation and why the White House believes its official assessment supports the policies the White House favors. All that's fine, and insofar as the White House is persuasive it should sway people. But we've already seen what the White House talking points on the surge are -- tribal alliances in Anbar Province, unsupported claims that civilian casualties are declining, plus we need more time for progress on the political front to take hold -- there's no particular reason to wait with baited breath to see how they format the official document.

Comments

Oy, the dreaded "baited breath"! Sorry, dude, it's "bated breath." Otherwise, good post.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 16, 2007 10:06 AM

Heh. Alan beat me to both points.

Posted by Trent | August 16, 2007 10:11 AM

One explanation is that reporters (and pundits for that matter) always want to make the world seem more exciting than it really is. This is one reason we always hear about the Friedman units. If a pundit says that things in Iraq will probably meander along for several years without much change in either direction, both in Iraq and in US policy, he's going to be a boring pundit.

It also reminds me of the old days during the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Every other week, we'd here a reporter state breathlessly that the next meeting or terrorist attack or whatever signaled Arafat's last chance to agree to Israel's terms. I think he probably had more than fifty "last chances".

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 10:15 AM

Skipping a little, an interesting question comes up: Once the Dems vote to authorize the next fiscal year's Iraq & Afghanistan supplemental, meaning that there's no chance of "ending the war" (as if the war ends when we say so) before the Jan '09, do the Dems change their tack? Having voted to fund the war effort twice since getting elected in '06 on an implicit promise to cut off funds, will Dems start thinking constructively about ways to succeed in stabilizing Iraq?

Judging from the recent back-pedaling by Dem presidential candidates on promises to withdraw rapidly from Iraq, perhaps they already have.

Posted by Juan | August 16, 2007 10:26 AM

MY is talking about sitting on the couch after eating a large number of anchovies in anticipation of White House press releases, a habit of his which has led many of his friends to remark (usually behind his back) about his "bait breath."

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 10:35 AM

The "Petraeus Report" and "September" were originally touted as important future milestones by the media because that was when the Serious Republicans were going to Demand Signs of Progress in Iraq, otherwise they were going to start to withdraw support.

All horseshit, of course. The centrist Republican M.O. on Iraq is clear: furrow your brow and talk about the need to see progress and a change in strategy. Then, when the time comes to actually vote on something meaningful, whine incessantly about partisanship and how you are shocked, SHOCKED that politics play a role in Washington. Rinse and repeat until January 2009 at which point it becomes Their Problem.

Posted by Jake H. | August 16, 2007 10:48 AM

"widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush's war strategy." But why should that be.

Unfortunately, it's because our Senators and Congressmen played the same game during the fight over the Iraq supplemental. Harry Reid himself told us that everything changes in September.

The fact that, politically, nothing changes in September is why Congress's poll ratings have taken a dive since.

My prediction: if the Democrats cave again and rubber stamp another Iraq war bill, they can say goodbye to their majority in the Senate and possibly the presidency as well.

Posted by Jinchi | August 16, 2007 10:49 AM

Broken record refrain warning: The failure in Iraq is going to eventually be fully the responsibility of the Democratic Party. Bush's role will fade in memory. The Right-leaning MSM will adopt the RNC/White House talking points, pinning another lost conflict on "elites" sapping the will of the public at large to soldier on and complete the mission. If a Democrat wins the Presidency he/she will have to either get out or create tolerable conditions in Iraq. Staying means more death, wasted money and continued violence due to a highly resented occupation. Leaving means the chaos and carnage spiral ever faster hellward. Worse than Hobson. Bush should hang for all this. That he won't is the ultimate example of the criminality that defines this nation. We all pay taxes funding this genocidal machine. We are all murderers.

Posted by steve duncan | August 16, 2007 10:49 AM

Having voted to fund the war effort twice since getting elected in '06 on an implicit promise to cut off funds, will Dems start thinking constructively about ways to succeed in stabilizing Iraq?

What a fair-minded question. What I really want to know is when they all stopped beating their wives.

Posted by Jake H. | August 16, 2007 10:52 AM

Re: "We all pay taxes funding this genocidal machine. We are all murderers."

Yes, but doesn't the fact that I cheat on my taxes make me a little less culpable?

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 10:52 AM

MY, don't overlook the context here: General Petraeus was going to be the go-to guy in September because he was universally annointed the philospher-soldier who had all the gravitas and credibility to bring to the table that everyone in the White House, up to and including the president, manifestly lacks at this point.

So what the "privatization" of Petraeus' testimony really means is that there's no hope that his gravitas and credibility will be brought to bear persuasively in the service of the White House's chosen policies.

Ergo, they are falling back into the propagandizing and spin-control mode that has long characterized their handling of the ongoing Iraq catastrophe. More bad (but not surprising) news.

Posted by elle loco | August 16, 2007 10:56 AM

You do realize that you should have stopped reading after the byline--if you're in the "learn about stuff" rather than the "press critique" business, that is. Weisman's presentation contains *no information at all* about whether "folks on the Hill really do see this as a make or break turning point."

Posted by Brad DeLong | August 16, 2007 10:58 AM

Yes, but doesn't the fact that I cheat on my taxes make me a little less culpable?

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 10:52 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A more ideal reduction in culpability might involve a trip to D.C. with a spectacularly historic bit of mayhem on your itinerary. Not my cup of tea but I'd gladly stay glued to the TV for a few days afterward. I was never much for that "served cold" routine myself.

Posted by steve duncan | August 16, 2007 11:09 AM

The White House is styling "the Petraeus report" as a make or break moment because it's in the interest of the Bush administration to set up phony benchmarks, then lie about whether they're being achieved. That's the whole point of this exercise.

They'll write the report, distorting Petraeus's and Crocker's recommendations to whatever extent necessary to advance their political goals, and then present the report as a disinterested evaluation. Of course even Petraeus and Crocker are far from disinterested analysts, but unlike the White House at least it's possible their views might be something other than propandistic spin. Too bad we won't find out what they are.

Posted by Paul Campos | August 16, 2007 11:24 AM

OK. But you forgot the PROMINENT place for allegations Iran is supplying everyone and therefore is the Great Evil.

Posted by The Other Alan | August 16, 2007 12:34 PM

Sorry, dude, it's "bated breath."

Not necessarily. I for one am releived that we don't need to eat worms while awaiting the report.

Posted by rea | August 16, 2007 12:37 PM

My horrific bait breath reference is of vastly superior quality to your horrific bait breath reference, Rea. So hah!

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 1:34 PM

The Dems are showing that you can't beat something with nothing. The polls back in May were pretty interesting. They were soft on the timetable idea, but the benchmarks idea was wildly popular with voters. With D.C. insiders, it was just the opposite - the benchmarks were considered window dressing.

I think the people are right. Benchmarks achieve something crucial - they both set the conditions for withdrawal and drive the logic for a withdrawal. The odd thing about the withdrawal now group on the blogosphere is the idea that Iraq can just be frozen, by some magical switch, as it is right now for a year or more until the political critical mass has gelled to withdraw troops. I think this consensus is driven, consciously or unconsciously, by trying to make Iraq an issue that folds nicely into the Democratic Presidential primary. Unfortunately, it is inhuman, irresponsible and irrational.

Surely Congress should demand not a look at what the laughable surge has done, but a broad panoramnic view of what Iraq is like right now. If we actually got that view - saw the unemployment, the sectarian violence, the flight of the professional class, the destitution - we could then address these issues. And addressing them wouldn't be about dividing up Iraq, or demanding an oil law, or anything of that kind. It would be about encouraging the Iraqi government to use the old structures that Iraq used successfully since the 50s - a huge public sector depending on oil. If Iraq could really reduce its external debts - such as the dumb war debt paid to Kuwait thanks to Baker and Albright's lobbying - and begin borrowing like a normal country, plus enormous grants in aid without strings attached from this country, it could actually begin to function again. It will never function as an American colony. It will never function as long as the Americans get to chose the 'enemies' of Iraq. By adopting a stance of encouraging conditions but not overseeing them, or administering them - the U.S. could begin to shrink its role in such a way that withdrawal will not lead automatically to a blood bath, as is the lobotomized thing to say at present. The other lobotomized thing to say is that the blood bath to come (which always ignores the blood bath that has been and is continuing - the 500,000 Iraqi dead, the infant mortality rates, the disease, the violence) can be stifled by the American military or the Iraqi army. It can't. As long as there is no state in Iraq, as long as the traditional economy doesn't work, as long as Americans are pressing for a stupid arrangement devised in D.C., Iraq will continue to suffer horrendously.

Benchmarks should include things like encouragements for refugees to come back, along with massive grants in aid to all countries that harbor Iraqi refugees. Getting a professional class comfortable with the state run economic system as per the past would be an excellent start in Iraq. This is something the Congress can actually favor - some positive difference, for a change, can come out of D.C.

Posted by roger | August 16, 2007 4:21 PM

How perfectly sensible and ridiculously unlikely.

Please don't try to deprive the D.C. crowd of their political set piece and media spectacle. What's the point of going to D.C. in the first place if you take this bit of fun away from them?

The excitement is already building. What will happen in September? Who could possibly imagine? What, more of the same you say? No, no, no. That can't be right.

Anyway, what Green Day said.

Posted by bob | August 16, 2007 5:41 PM

"Bush should hang for all this. That he won't is the ultimate example of the criminality that defines this nation. We all pay taxes funding this genocidal machine. We are all murderers."

This guy gets it.

And as for the guy who cheats on his taxes, hey, I don't pay them at all.

It's like people who say you can't complain about the government unless you voted. Au contraire, mon frere! Since I didn't vote, I'm the only one who CAN complain! I wasn't the one choosing between the Italian Mafia and the Sicilian Mafia...

"A more ideal reduction in culpability might involve a trip to D.C. with a spectacularly historic bit of mayhem on your itinerary."

Yeah, I did that, too. Did eight years of a nine-year sentence in the Fed for it. (Although it wasn't in Washington, it would have got there sooner or later.)

Look, anybody with a brain knew that this "September report" stuff was crap from Day One. It was a way for both sides to delay having to show their constituents that they were actually interested in doing anything at all. When the day actually comes, they'll just do it all over again.

Again, who are the people going to vote for in 2008? Nader? Perot? No - they're gonna for some Democrat and some Republican.

And the game goes on. And the Democrats and the Republicans get their campaign contributions, they get their Congressional perks, they get their pork barrel, and they get to push people around by making laws - and they get their blowjobs from the local D.C. madams.

When you have a nation of morons, this is how the country works.

Change the morons, you'll change the country.

Good luck.

Email me on the day of your success.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 17, 2007 1:35 AM