No One

Interesting stuff:

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

I dunno about that, certainly it seems to me that a lot of the current U.S. government's allies have been arguing, falsely, that there has been adequate progress toward reconciliation. Either way, I think the point is clear enough -- Petraeus is right that if you're willing to expend an infinite quantity of American lives, American money, and American resources of diplomacy and attention on Iraq, things might kinda sorta turn out okay at some point depending on what happens. I would only caution that if we cut and run it's also possible that some sunny scenario will emerge. But in terms of the goals actually set for the surge, i.e. reconciliation, it hasn't happened.

Comments

"Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services."

Or in the area of convincing some people to stop drilling holes in the heads of some other people (which is pretty rude).

Posted by Linus | March 14, 2008 12:26 PM

The endless discussion goes on. Stay or go, how to stay or how to go, staying might be great, leaving might turn out great too, but no one can really say. So we'll just go on doing a little of both, going and staying, until we see how things turn out. A century is not a very long time, come to think of it. The Iraq war has became a fixed facet of the US government and the experience of the US people. Without it, nothing would be able to function any more in the US, everyone would feel a total loss of reality. So, I guess, there's my answer: we'll stay. You know what you have, you don't know what you'll get. Happy Five Year Nightmare.

Posted by Quentin | March 14, 2008 12:31 PM

Traitor. You don't even deserve to be able to write General P*******' name, hallowed be it.

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 12:33 PM

Petraeus seems to be the ultimate political general. He is covering his ass; he will parlay this whole experience to political advantage when he runs.

Posted by della Rovere | March 14, 2008 12:40 PM

dunno about that, certainly it seems to me that a lot of the current U.S. government's allies have been arguing, falsely, that there has been adequate progress toward reconciliation.

No, it seems to me that a lot of the current U.S. government's allies have been arguing, correctly, that there has been some progress toward reconciliation, but that the progress has not yet been adequate.

OTOH, a lot of the current U.S. government's opponents have been arguing, falsely, that there has been no progress whatsoever toward reconciliation.

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM

I'm growing increasingly perplexed as to why our generals are the go-to people for assessing the political climate in Iraq.

At some point, I'd like to hear a detailed, truthful assessment from say, I don't know, the Secretary-of-State, or uhm, the President?

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 12:46 PM

Falsely...

You've got to be kidding. The whole debate's shifted, yet the beer-swilling antiwar bloggers are the last to get it.

What you have is the lowering of expectations here. Some benchmarks are being met, but Petraeus has an interest in damping down speculation.

Recall, this was David “Betray Us,” so you can see his concern. You'd be the first to join in calling him a traitor if he did anything otherwise.

Posted by Americanecon | March 14, 2008 12:56 PM

I'd say that antiwar bloggers were the first to see the debate shift. Remember when Bush said that victory was a peaceful democracy in Iraq? Then it was stability? Now it is reconciliation? What will the debate shift to "not a total civil war"?

The hawks are trying to find any excuse to stay in Iraq. Why? What is so important about Iraq that we would stay no matter what? Oh wait...

Posted by freddiemac | March 14, 2008 1:07 PM

Americanecon

I think you are right to call Matthew on the carpet for asserting "falsely" so quickly.

However, I would not go as far as saying, as you did, that the "whole debate" has shifted.

Certainly, there is still a debate on just "how much" progress, and certainly "how long" progress has taken and will continue to take.

I am glad that someone, albeit a general, is starting to set more realistic expectations.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 1:07 PM

No one, eh?

So this means Saint John McSame, the erstwhile GOP presidential nominee, is "no one" Mr. Betrayus?

Could be we agree.

Posted by gonzone | March 14, 2008 1:38 PM

The question of spending another 200 billion dollars on Iraq next year is coming to a close, I'm pretty sure. And without the 200 billion dollars, we will have to either - suck up having an inadequate force that won't have the technological edge to force down its casualties or - get out.

One of the bad things about the surge is that, by presenting the false option of "winning" so beloved by the Bush zombie crew, it has obscured the scenarios for getting out. I think any scenario has to include detente with Iran, which will secure to an extent the American flank as we wind up a failed Persian Gulf strategy and find a more coherent and rational one, which takes into account America's limits in the Middle East.

The first unpopular with the press thing the next Dem president will do is get rid of Petraeus. That will cause suicide threats among his buddies at WAPO.

Also, the ever disgusting liberal interventionist crowd will flood the op eds with pleas to leave American troops in Kurdistan. Because these people never learn.

Posted by roger | March 14, 2008 2:25 PM

Everyone, including the bloggers here, seem to be drifting away from memory of what specifically the surge was to accomplish within a six month period. If I remember correctly, both Democratic and Republican leaders pretty much agreed to a series of benchmarks. The military segment of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to achieve these benchmarks. Our leaders' comments were captured on film. I suggest that someone review these film clips, re-list their stated benchmarks, and then hold them accountable for their promises. The primary promise that I remember was whether or not to begin troop withdrawl if the Iraqis didn't step up and take ownership of their country's future. To date, none of the civilian benchmarks have been met. My contention is that the military surge was a "means" not the "end". Refocus back on what those benchmarks are, not what our military has accomplished. Quit allowing our politicians the ability to continuously reshift the goalposts.

Posted by DaleintheWest | March 14, 2008 2:45 PM

The real point of the "surge" was to shift what the troops were doing, not nearly so much exactly how many of them there are. Now that the task at hand has been more appropriately defined, progress is being made. Whether or not this progress is fast enough, and where the finish line of "sufficient" exactly is, seems to me an argument between people with wildly unrealistic expectations on both sides. It will take a while, and we will continue to work the problem.

Iraq is the keystone state in the Persian Gulf, a region that's been officially defined as one of vital national interests since the Carter Administration. It has only become more important every year since. The idea that we will be able to just click the heels of our ruby slippers and fly back to Kansas to live happily ever after is preposterous. None of the three possible next presidents are going to do this. We have to have a reasonable conclusion. We can argue about the best tactics for achieving such a conclusion, but none of them are going to be "remote control".

Posted by Robert Powell | March 15, 2008 9:51 AM

As I've repeatedly pointed out, if not in these exact words, the US has no say in how Iraq will turn out.

The Iraqis do.

There are only two possible outcomes:

1) Collapse to a failed state which will force the US out.

2) Nationalist coalition between Sunnis and Shia - which is NOT, you will note, a "reconciliation" - that forces the US out.

Either way, the US will not be staying in Iraq for more than another two years, if that.

And Powell's constant reiteration that Iraq is a "keystone state" is just so much bullshit. Nothing that has happened or will happen in Iraq is of any strategic significance to the US - unless of course we start a war with Iran from there, or end up losing an entire army in there - both of which would never happen if we weren't there under false pretenses in the first place.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 15, 2008 10:27 PM