He makes a key point: "It is not clear to me that the primary success you've pointed to, in Anbar, has anything to do with the surge."
« Crocker's Deceptions | Main | Iraqi Forces »
Obama's Turn
11 Sep 2007 12:51 pm
Comments (35)
This is not even close to a key point blobzilla.
If an event has ushered in progress, and affords a model which has the potential to garner more progress in the future, then it doesnt matter whether it had anything to do with the surge.
then it doesnt matter whether it had anything to do with the surge.
it does if the hearing is about the surge.
I also think this posts lays bare the fat one's crude expediency and puerile mind.
He is so desperate to undermine the progress in iraq, and so shameless in how he is prepared to go about it, that he is essentially complaining that the report of progress in anbar is unfair because it didnt result from the surge.
He strikes one as the kind to take home his ball when he starts losing, or would were his sagging physique not to betray a life lead in obvious hostility to all physical exertion.
The point of the surge was to help the politicians in Baghdad reach political reconciliation. This hasn't happened. We don't need the surge to finance tribal leaders in Anbar to fight AQI. Considering the fact that sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites and competing tribes are the real problem while the size and importance of AQI has been overblown by our news media, the tribal leaders against AQI meme is really neither here nor there. In addition, our own Pentagon says that our ground forces will reach the breaking point by April, which means no more surge. We can either heal our ground force capabilities or we can gamble what we have left on a hail mary pass that so far hasn't really yielded results.
Pimp hand, you miss the point of his comment. Petraeus is basically dissembling when he claims that the escalation of troops had anything to do with the situation in Anbar. That progress was well under way before the escalation was implemented. Plus, as I understand it, the Sunnis are using us to arm and train them in preparation of the civil war they believe is coming.
Again, this escalation was designed to give the Iraqi central goverment an opportunity to achieve the benchmarks they established. The military has done an excellent job and yet it has resulted in no meaningful progress on the benchmarks. Changing this to an issue of whether we have made progress on security is to dismiss a significant part of the calculus used to justify this escalation in the first place.
'it does if the hearing is about the surge.'
the hearing is about the current military and political situation in iraq and what petraeus recommendations are going forward. Now, 'the surge' is obviously the most salient part of all this but the desire to make it entirely about the surge and thus portray any un-surge related progress as 'not counting' points to what I mention above: A complete disregard for what has actually happened over the last six months in iraq and a willingness to pursue political goals which is unburdened by either integrity or self respect.
Your own posting underscores the previous poster's point. This hearing is about the escalation/surge.
military security + political progress (benchmarks) = escalation/surge
Hmmm, no comments Sullivan has a quote for the day on this sad anniversary...
Here's his QOD five days after the event - from Atrios:
"The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount a fifth column."
Being there, in NYC, on that day has certainly encouraged my lefty decadence. If not a fifth column we at least need a constitutional intervention in the form of multiple impeachments.
Some war, huh? And anyway, the red zone is always at the fringes.
Sorry to say, but phs has something of a point. It is perfectly fair to point out, as Obama does (having read all the blogs, apparently) that Anbar is not necessarily attributable to the "surge." But it's not that great of a point. You can say this hearing is about the surge, but c'mon, that's silly, or should be anyway. The focus of Congress needs to be on where do things stand in Iraq and where do we go from here. If there is success in Anbar -- and I'm not saying there is; I'm much more convinced of the reports that we're effectively arming a Sunni counter-government insurgency -- but if there is, then the implications should be taken into account regardless of whether the surge is "responsible" or not.
For the past few months, every time a lefty questioned our lack of progress in Iraq, especially on the political reconciliation front, we were told that we were being shrill and that we should wait for the General's report on the surge. Now we're told his report is not on the surge. So what was the past few months of right-wing talking points about exactly, waiting to here that we're now giving money to tribal leaders in Anbar? I'm not sure that really helps the dead-enders' arguments.
Glenn-- how can we do this: "the implications should be taken into account regardless of whether surge is responsible or not" if the success is being attributed to the surge?
That's the point!
If the surge isn't responsible, but something else is, what is that something? What does that mean for our tactics? How should that guide our policy in the future? Does it require maintaining the surge? Does it preclude an immediate draw-down? Etc etc.
One cannot assess the implications until one understands the root of whatever progress exists. And that starts first and foremost by clearing the cloud of obfuscation surrounding Anbar by pointing out that what's going on there has nothing to do with the surge, and as such, does not suggest maintaining the surge will portend future such successes.
I mean, c'mon. This is a stupid discussion and stupid (or dishonest) point. It's impossible to understand clearly what inferences one ought to draw from Anbar if one cannot correctly determine what is driving the progress in Anbar.
Attributing that to the surge not only disingenuously drives up support for a policy that is not, apparently, working, but it also keeps us from maybe gleaning some understanding and insight into how we might create future successes in other regions by maybe mimicking Anbar.
That is, of course, if we think what's taking place in Anbar is actually progress, which is questionable.
I think it's great that we've done so much in Anbar and helped the Sunni locals resist the al-Qaeda goons. Good for us.
But even with all our success in the Sunni-controlled part of the country, we see that over 90% of Sunnis in Iraq think attacks on US forces are justified. Sunni support for Maliki's central government languishes in the single digits.
We did the right thing by helping to restore order vis-a-vis al-Qaeda, but still, in terms of the big picture of political reconciliation this seems to get us exactly nowhere.
I'd like to see a withdrawal of US forces to someplace nearby like Kuwait so that, if there's another place like Ramadi under assault by foreign jihadist types, we're able to help the Iraqis defend themselves. But otherwise, we're not doing anything to forestall the momentum of the civil war, and sadly I don't see any alternative but to let the Iraqis hash that out on their own. Nothing is served by keeping our troops caught in the middle.
Pimp hand strike,
The hearing is about whether there is any justification for continuing our occupation of Iraq with 150,000 + troops, and the key rationale given for that occupation is to continue the surge, since a large reduction of our trooops right now would put an end to the surge. So its entirely appropriate to disregard non-surge related events, since the focus of the hearings is about the effectiveness of the surge specifically, and of the occupation in general.
BTW, the success in Anbar province in crushing AQI is due to our arming of the Sunni Iraqis (who include former supporters of Saddam Hussein). Arming the Sunnis does not require us to keep 150,000 + troops in Iraq on an indefinite basis (or at least until Dubya leaves office). So for you to argue that the Anbar success story justifies Dubya's insistence that we cannot begin an orderly, gradual withdrawal of our troops during his Presidency is disingenuous on your part.
Moreover, you are ignoring the long-term price of this success. Arming the former supporters of Saddam Hussein strengthens their long-term ability to continue pursuing a sectarian civil war against the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government. This of course undermines our long-term goal of establishing a stable democratic government in Iraq that will serve as a beacon and example of Western freedom to the Arab world. It also amounts to a betrayal of the people who were our allies against Saddam Hussein.
If anybody is showing a complete disregard for what has actually happened over the last six months in iraq, and a willingness to pursue political goals which is unburdened by either integrity or self respect, it is the President, the Republicans in Congress, and of course dead-enders like yourself. You may not like having your side getting pimp slapped by the Democrats in Congrees, but you can't validly argue that it is undeserved.
Please give it up, the idea that we should only be concerned about the results of the surge, and ignore progress which cant be attributed to is, is just silly and a transparently ad hoc justification to discard things you find inconvienient to your political goals.
if any of you were really serious on this score you'd only be talking about metrics concerning baghdad, since this was the only portion of iraq where 'the surge'actually happened
"Please give it up, the idea that we should only be concerned about the results of the surge, and ignore progress which cant be attributed to is, is just silly and a transparently ad hoc justification to discard things you find inconvienient to your political goals.
if any of you were really serious on this score you'd only be talking about metrics concerning baghdad, since this was the only portion of iraq where 'the surge'actually happened"
Pimp hand strike,
It is the idea of the Bush administration that we should be concerned about the results of surge, and it is his general and his ambassador that make the point about Anbar, and who are not focusing on Bagdhad. They are the ones who are not really serious in this matter; their only concern apparently is to help Dubya run out the clock so that he doesn't have to begin withdrawing the troops while he is still president.
Please give up defending the disingenuous of this administration, particularly with your disingenous arguments. The Democrats in Congress are calling the administration on its arguments made in bad faith, and you have the gall to say that it's the Democrats who are arguing in bad faith? Such blatant dishonesty on your part is deserving of a pimp hand strike.
The bottomline is security can only be achieved if we stay and babysit at a cost of billions and billions of borrowed dollars for as long as China will buy our debt.
What a fine legacy for all who have died in this fiasco.
Pimp Hand--it seems you want to stay focused on the shiny object in the General's hand. That's your right. The surge hasn't been a success by the articluated metrics. No one can reasonable dispute that.
Magisterludi--You are right on. I say fully fund the war, but only from current taxes (increase them if necessary). If this war is so important to America's interest, we should at least be bearing the burden DIRECTLY. Cut-up the War Charge Card!!!!
I'm sure all the ardent supporters of this war are more than willing to let W's tax cuts lapse and institute a war tax.
After all , surely they wouldn't want to burden their children and their children's children with a staggering debt and economic depression.
PHS @ 2:04pm
If I recall correctly, the metrics for Baghdad alone show an abject failure of the 'surge'. The only glimmer of hope is Anbar, which is NOT a result of the surge. So you have successfully negated your arguement.
eltoro @ 1:56pm
You have hit the nail squarely on the head. The one roaring success is moving our supposed objective toward abysmal failure - we are propping up the Sunnis and thus assuring that the 'democratically elected leadership' will fail.
How can Petraus and Crocker defend this as it is a failure, both militarily and diplomatically?
Shorter pimp hand strikes!: otherwise legitimate criticisms of the Petraeus testimony are rendered illegitimate to the extent the author of said critque has a "sagging physique."
Classy, and, might I add, perfectly consistent with the behavior of all the other exercise obsessed assholes that continue to cheerlead for for the continuation of the carnage in Iraq.
Several manufacturers have reported recent innovations in their designs of fuel cell technologies.
Clearly, this is a result of Teh SURGE(TM)!!!
So what PHS is doing here are 1) calling people stupid and alienating them 2) making himself look stupid and 3) as a result, showing how shallow and lacking in substance the surge and the testimonies for the past couple of days have been.
Glen, you write:
"The focus of Congress needs to be on where do things stand in Iraq and where do we go from here. If there is success in Anbar -- and I'm not saying there is; I'm much more convinced of the reports that we're effectively arming a Sunni counter-government insurgency -- but if there is, then the implications should be taken into account regardless of whether the surge is "responsible" or not."
So let's take up the question of implications. Surely ou are right that we should question the implication involved in basically, surrendering in Anbar province. This is called, with a maximum of unintentional comedy, soft partition by Ignatius. But that it happened goes to the heart of the two justifications for the U.S. presence in Iraq. One, it it undermines the one final rationale for the invasion - that the U.S. had to exert force not only to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but to exterminate the Ba'athist network entirely. We are now giving money to the Ba'athist network, and - by giving them access to the resources of the security forces - arms. Two, it opens up a fact that the U.S. media and warmongers in the States have systematically covered up: that the U.S. is not suppressing sectarian violence, but creating and exploiting it. There is no way to justify giving arms to a force that does not recognize the legitimacy of the central government on the excuse that we are in Iraq to suppress a civil war. Of course, the absurdity of saying things that are the opposite of reality and sheer logic has become so ingrained in the heads of the Bush zombies that one expects them to self-lobotomize in this way, but the rest of America can pretty clearly see what is happening.
So, the bloodbath that would occur if we withdraw (bracketing, for the moment, the horrendous half a million dead Iraqi holocaust that has occured because of our occupation), predicted by the warmongers, is to be guaranteed by our actions now? Is that the new policy? Seems like it stinks. Seems like state supported terrorism. Seems like the kind of thing that Qaddafi did when he supplied arms to criminal cliques in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
since you are all doing such a bad job i'll give you some advice on rebutting my argument
this post below sums it up best
'the hearing is about the current military and political situation in iraq and what petraeus recommendations are going forward. Now, 'the surge' is obviously the most salient part of all this but the desire to make it entirely about the surge and thus portray any un-surge related progress as 'not counting' points to what I mention above: A complete disregard for what has actually happened over the last six months in iraq and a willingness to pursue political goals which is unburdened by either integrity or self respect.'
Now, two ways you could disagree with this would be
1. Argue that the current hearings are in fact only about the surge and not the overall security situation in iraq. You would look extremely stupid but you could do it
2. Disagree with my hypothesis on why some are seeking to dismiss security gains which can not be directly attribute to the surge. The best way to do this would be provide a sound reason why progress which isnt directly a result of the surge should be excluded from the analysis.
I hope this helps.
Surely ou are right that we should question the implication involved in basically, surrendering in Anbar province.
One of the reasons we have trouble winning this war is that war supporters insist on relabeling any declaration of victory as "surrender."
Anbar is a great victory, in my book. If we withdrew today, I see no likelihood that al-Qaeda could achieve any sort of safe haven there; the locals now have the tools to finish any remaining aspects of the job. So there's no question of "surrender" at all.
If the Anbar province is to be considered a model (I don't agree, but for the sake of argument), it is just as much evidence for reducing the US troop level throughout the country than it would be as evidence that whatever presumed gains were caused by increased US troop levels elsewhere.
If the Anbar province is to be considered a model (I don't agree, but for the sake of argument)
Of course it's not a model, because the Anbar situation with respect to foreign jihadists is unique. We haven't solved anything in Anbar with respect to Sunni-Shiite reconciliation, we've simply helped the locals fight off an al-Qaeda incursion. So the only way we can extend that to other parts of the country is if al-Qaeda starts making a big stink elsewhere.
Actually there is a THIRD way to disagree with your distracting and irrelevant comment--point out the fallacy of your entire premise.
The purpose of these hearings are not "about the current military and political situation in iraq and what petraeus recommendations are going forward". This dog and pony show was MANDATED by the congressional act AUTHORIZING the escalation of troops. In other words, as part of the authorization, CONGRESS required a progress report on whether the escalation was achieving its STATED PURPOSE. So any commentary on general success in Iraq, unrelated to the surge, is IRRELEVANT and a DISTRACTION from the stated purpose of the hearing.
Take away your faulty premise and the rest of what you have to say is irrelevant as well.
Steve, interesting comment. I'm not a war supporter. However, I do have a memory. My memory tells me that Al Qaeda was not ruling Iraq in 2003, when the U.S. invaded. My memory also tells me that in 2004, when the Iraqi Governing Council proposed an amnesty that would cover insurgents who had killed Americans, the Bush administration shot it down with rhetoric about how it would be a surrender. Finally, I remember how Bush has said the U.S. will be in Iraq as long as the Iraqi government requests us to be there - which implies that the U.S. government is fighting on behalf of the central government. If that is so, it can only be a surrender, in that capacity, to give weapons to enemies of that central government.
The U.S. won in Iraq in 2003. The U.S. became irrelevant in the aftermath of Najaf in 2004. Since then, we have sold weapons to the Saudis - who supply the manpower and money for Al qaeda in Iraq - have attacked al qaeda's main enemy, the Shi'ite militias, and have helped Shi'ite militias attack Sunni militias. This is because there is no logical mission in Iraq. It is a nobrainer that there will be no victory on Bush terms in Iraq, or I should say, it is as unlikely as the U.S. converting to Islam via Osama bin Laden's video.
One of the maddening things about the hearings today and yesterday is how closely they match with the pre-war hearings. In both, the main issue - what is the bottom line - is strenously avoided. The main issue is: if Petraeus thinks that we can win in Iraq given ten years of occupation, what will that require in terms of resources, and is it worth it? Cost will certainly be another 400-500 billion dollars. Deaths(just american) another 2,000-3,000 men. Injuries of another 20,000. This, of course, is simply hypothesizing that he is right - I think he is crazy, but let's grant him the hypothesis. At the end of this, what do we get?
The only way we can check to see if there is progress is having some sense of the potential cost of the project. The supposed 'victory' in Anbar should then be figured into that ten year timeline, where I think it is pretty clear that it turns into a defeat, as the U.S. tries to control the Sunnis to which we have given arms and money.
pimp hand strikes! :
"blobzilla"
"puerile mind"
project much?
Pimp hand strikes,
You are obviously not paying attention to anything that has been written in response to your disingenuous and asinine comments.
First of all, nobody here has excluded Anbar from any analysis of the Iraq situation, and neither have the Democrats in Congress. Both groups have repeatedly and accurately pointed out an inconvenient truth for you and your buddy Dubya;it is incorrect at best and dishonest at worst to use Anbar as a justification for the surge, since the tactic of arming former Saddam Hussein supporters has nothing to do with the strategy of the surge. (BTW, you have even agreed that Anbar has nothing to do with the surge.)
Second, Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have clearly argued in these hearings that the Anbar situation is evidence of the success of the surge, and of the need to continue the occupation for the time being with no major withdrawals. Therefore, it is right for Obama and others to argue that Petraeus is wrong to cite Anbar as a defense of the surge strategy. Obama and other congressional Democrats are not the ones being cynical, partisan, and dishonest; it is the Dubya administration, which includes Petraeus and Crocker.
Third, if you and your fellow war supporters were truly concerned about exploring what has worked in Iraq, then you would be pointing out the real implication of Anbar, and not regurgitating the Dubya adminstration's propaganda points. Anbar does not demonstrate the need for an indefinite occupation of Iraq by 150,000 + US soldiers. In fact, it shows that in terms of crushing Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, success can be achieved with far less troops, since the Iraqis themselves are willing and able to kill off Al-Qaeda. All we need to do is give the weapons to do so. It doesn't take over 150,000 troops to give the Iraqis weapons.
However, this tactic does have its shortcomings. It stengthens the hand of the Sunni insurgents (many of whom were former Saddam Hussein supporters) against the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, and increases their long-term ability to continue waging their sectarian civil war against the Shiites, who were our allies against Saddam Hussein. Unless political reconciliation is achieved before the Sunnis finish destroying Al Qaeda, the Iraqi sectarian civil war will continue unabated and with greater force. This will doom any chance we have of permantly establishing a stable democratic government in the heart of the Middle East. It also amounts to a betrayal of the Shiites.
So don't give me your BS about how the anti-war crowd here and in Congress are excluding Anbar from analysis of the Iraq situation. The reality is that the anti-war crowd has actually thought through the implications of Anbar, unlike the pro-war crowd. Your assertions are the typically dishonest and illogical talking points that you Dubya dead-enders use to obscure the truth.
Such blatant dishonesty on your part is deserving of not just one, but two pimp slaps. Keep going with your lies (which are quite typical of someone who is a pimp), and you will be deserving of a brass knuckle sandwich.
Ignore this nitwit, "pimp hand strikes".
There ARE NO "security gains", so he's a moron for suggesting there are. Not one single independent report out of Iraq other than by Administration shills like O'Hanlon and Petraeus has indicated ANY "security gains" that cannot be attributed to the fact that Baghdad has been mostly cleansed of Sunnis (except in neighborhoods surrounded by concrete walls!) ALL other reports indicate that sectarian deaths are rising, US casualties are rising, and refugees are increasing.
There is ZERO chance for any form of political "reconciliation" because of the force imbalance between the Shia and the Sunni. Until exhaustion sets in, there will BE NO "reconciliation" regardless of the level of violence in the country. And that level is controlled mostly by other factors, such as the weather and recent events such as mosque attacks by one faction or the other that stimulate a response from the other faction.
Therefore the "surge" is irrelevant to anything that is going on in Iraq. It's pure theater, and this "report" is more of the same.
Not to mention that there IS NO "Anbar situation." Al Qaeda in Iraq was never more than 8% of the problem, if that. And there is ZERO evidence or credibility to believe that the Sunni insurgency or tribes in Anbar have actually done anything significant with regard to Al Qaeda in Iraq other than collect bags of money from the US military to drive out a few AQI cells.
PHS is just another loony-tune right wing nut on a par with Al, Ford and the rest of the "LSD" (Less Sense than Demented) crowd...
PHS,
YOU ARE THE FAT ONE!
MOI HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments closed September 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Too bad he filibustered so much time that Petraeus didn't get a chance to respond.
Posted by Fred | September 11, 2007 12:57 PM