waiting for the other shoe to fly

President and Warlord George W. Bush will be using up valuable airtime tonight to tell the American people that he, Bush, has “decided” to “accept” the “advice” of Gen. David Petraeus, as presented in the report that, well, um, in a report that was drafted by the President’s staff. (We know that the General was lying when he said that the report was his and that he did not share a draft with anyone. He may have briefed the President without handing him a piece of paper—a plausible deniability ploy that was leaked last week—but it was reported that Petraeus had to undergo “murder boards” last weekend to prepare him for congressional questioning. You can’t very well do a mock Q&A if the questioners don’t know what they are questioning, so somebody saw drafts of that testimony. Thus, from the very first sentence in his testimony, Gen. Petraeus was lying. He then went on to make assertions about the declining numbers of Iraqi casualties without giving a source for the data. It can’t be the US military, since the Pentagon has made a very public point about how they don’t collect that sort of data—so, where did those numbers come from? Those that do collect this sort of data say that such casualties are up since this escalation began, so, is Petraeus just making this up? We could also call that lying. Gosh, this could have been a post all by itself. . . . Uh, where was I?)

The President will go on TV to tell us that he’s taking his own advice. (There, that’s more succinct.)

Of course, that’s not actually true, either. There’s no advice to take. This “withdrawal”—this new new new way forward—is, of course, not really a withdrawal at all. It’s simply troops coming home while not having anyone available to replace them. And this new new new way is more of the same ol’ same ol’.

Anyway, come evening, I am fully prepared to be throwing things at my television. . . no, not because Bush will be talking smack. . . again. . . at this point, that guy isn’t worth damaging my TV. . . hell, he ain’t even worth the mangy Chuck Taylor that I might, uh, chuck. No, I think that I am going to be throwing things after the president speaks. It is then, I expect, that establishment journalists and the pundit class will just parrot the Patraeus/Bush talking points; never bothering to really do the research and report on the utter failure of the Bush escalation, or the fact that the current troop levels are unsustainable, and that come summer, we will just be back to “stay the course” numbers.

Nor, do I expect many on TV to ask the real question: What are we in Iraq for? Every single stated reason for invading Iraq has been debunked. Every single goal of this “surge”—as outlined by the president himself—has been left unmet. Every single measure has shown the war to be a failure. Even Petraeus himself doesn’t believe that Bush’s “strategy” for Iraq will make America safer.

So why do more and more troops have to die?

I’m not expecting anyone to ask that one.

Instead, I do expect the talking heads to paint this as a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. I expect to hear something about how the ideologues in both parties—I'm counting on hearing the term “radical anti-war left”—are fighting over Iraq as if it were nothing more than a political football while “serious” people try to find some middle ground.

Of course, Iraq is no political football. . . well, let me correct myself there, it probably is for many in the White House and in the minority party—it’s really all about domestic politics for them—but for me, and for many who care, Iraq is about people dying everyday. . . for no good reason.

And, of course, the real “middle ground” on Iraq is to begin to withdraw, really withdraw, troops now, and get them all out by the end of Bush’s term in office. That’s the position held by over two-thirds of Americans; that’s what I would call consensus.

But, I’m not sure I will hear much about that, either.

No, I expect that this speech will be placed in the context of a pissing match. “Who’s winning—Democrats or Republicans?” That’s what I expect.

I am prepared to be surprised, but if not, I think I can spare a shoe or two.

i’ll take that as a “no”

I learned a long time ago, while studying the decisions leading up to the Bay of Pigs debacle, that if a military leader expresses anything less than 100% confidence that he (they were pretty much all “he” back then) can accomplish an objective, then he is virtually certain that he can’t. Even if he says something like, “I’m ninety percent certain,” you can be pretty sure that he’s thinking, “it’s gonna take a miracle.” These are can-do guys, and they don’t very much like to go before their president or their people and say “I can’t.”

What, then, to make of this?



President Kennedy learned from his disastrous experience with the Bay of Pigs invasion to read between the lines, if you will, and evaluated military advice differently two years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It shouldn’t take a degree in political science to know that when a supreme field commander answers a question like “Does [your strategy] make America safer?” with “Sir, I don’t know actually,” that he is really saying “not even a little.”

Which, of course, begs the question: If we have already been told that political success in Iraq is not imminent, if we already know that the current strategy has accelerated ethno-sectarian violence, and we now find out that the high and continued loss of blood and treasure does not make our own country safer, then what the hell are we doing over there???

I am somewhat heartened by a rundown of Tuesday’s testimony posted on the Democratic Caucus’s Senate Journal—at least on their website, it seems that the majority “gets it.”

When you click over and read that page, pay special attention to the number of times Gen. Petraeus says something like “I don’t know” or “I have not asked” whenever the true answer would be unpleasant or politically disadvantageous to the Bush Administration. Now that’s the kind of can-do leadership that inspires confidence, huh?


(h/t Think Progress)

testing. . . one, two, three. . . .

Why does the problem with feedback in the microphone of General David Petraeus at the start of his testimony before two House committees seem like the perfect metaphor for the White House authored report that Petraeus eventually recited?

Oh, yeah. . . because it’s the perfect metaphor.

General Patsy builds his dream house

Reflecting on the latest bombing of the al-Askari mosque, Washington Post reporter (and author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq) Thomas Ricks looks at America’s position in Iraq and is reminded of a cautionary allegory told to him by Warren Buffett:

If you’ve been playing poker for half an hour and you don’t know who the patsy at the table is—you are the patsy.

If you don’t think that rings chillingly true all by its lonesome, have a gander at the words of General David Petraeus, Commander of US forces in Iraq, as he begins his long Summer’s spin toward the September assessment of the Bush war escalation (assembled from three sources):

If you drive around Baghdad, you'll find astonishing signs of normalcy in perhaps half to two-thirds of the city. I’m talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks — big ones, markets that are very vibrant. . . .

The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges. In certain areas it really is very heartening to see what it has done. . . .

In fact, the car bomb numbers have come down fairly steadily as well until just a couple of days ago, and we'll see if we can get those coming down again. . . .

There's a real vibrancy in certain parts of Iraq, and in others obviously there is continued fighting and a sectarian cycle of violence underway. Obviously, there is damage, a need to … help them stitch back the fabric of society that was torn during the height of the sectarian violence.

Many have jumped all over the “soccer leagues” reference as a good example of how either out-of-touch or untrustworthy Petraeus is, but what jumped out at me was that last line, the one that refers to the height of sectarian violence in the past tense (was torn).

The General made his comments on the same day as the minaret bombings in Samarra, and before Thursday’s retaliatory attacks on numerous Sunni mosques, but after the release of a Pentagon report that showed how very much in the thick of sectarian violence Iraq and its occupiers are right now.

Spencer Ackerman and Think Progress have more on the specific absurdities in the Petraeus assessment, but even a casual observer of the situation knows that, in the darkest terms, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

And, if it is the case that General Petraeus is not just another Bush apologist, if it is the case that he actually believes that things are vibrant, or getting better, or that the peak sectarian violence is behind us, well, then, you really ain’t seen the worst.

As Ricks, evaluating the latest round of miscalculations and Pollyanna pronouncements, says, paraphrasing legendary military strategist Carl von Clausewitz:

The first and really only task of the top commander is to understand the nature of conflict in which he is engaged.

If von Clausewitz were around to play cards with today’s global leaders, he probably wouldn’t need the full half hour to fix his gaze firmly on the US command. Isn’t it about time for General Petraeus, and the civilian leadership to which he must answer, to take a good look around the table—and a sincere look at the entire house of cards that is Iraq?


(cross-posted to Daily Kos)