In September General Petraeus is scheduled to deliver his report to Congress on the progress of the military surge and political reform in Iraq. The Democrats have been using the progress report as a make or break benchmark for continuing or ending the war. It doesn't take a psychic to predict what will happen:
- Petraeus will say that some progress has been made in battling the insurgency and al-Qaida, but that more work has to be done
- Bush will claim credit for any progress and tick off a number of "successes," then attack the Democrats for wanting to cut-and-run before the surge can complete it's job, and just when victory is in sight...thereby proving that the Democrats are "weak on national security"
- Congressional Democrats will claim that any progress is too little, too late...and suggest that the Administration is probably pumping up any positives and sweeping any negatives under the rug anyway and anything he says cannot be trusted (which, of course, is why Bush smartly set up Petraeus as the messenger instead of himself)
So...decisions on the war were punted on until September. September will bring the same uncertainty as we had in the spring. What happens next? Do the Democrats pull the plug on funding? Do both the Democrats and the Republicans use the progress report as a wedge for political gain? What do you think Petraeus is thinking about 1) what should happen next, and 2) how the politicians will try to manipulate anything he says to their own personal gain?
Speak now, for in September Congress will be back in session...Bush will be back from Crawford...and we'll still be in Iraq (and Afghanistan). What are our next steps?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 83
Liberals are too tunnel visioned to see the big picture.
I'm all for getting out of Iraq, Afghanstan, Pakistan, Germany, Italy, Japan, Scotland, Diego Garcia, Australia, France, etc....
If our soldiers did not have the hands tied, and if they could do the job they are trained to do, we would have been out of Iraq long ago. If the Iraqi's themselves would step up to the plate and start policing their own, instead of blowing each other up, we'd have been out of there long ago. However, the mind set of the inhabitants of that part of the world is foreign to our mind set. They will never love their neighbours as much as the hate their children.
Ron is absolutely correct (based on my reading of media reports from a multitude of liberal, conservative, and "non-partisan" outlets) that most Americans and most Iraqis would like us not to be there. But neither Americans or Iraqis want to leave the place in shambles. Can we somehow "fix things?" Are our chances better for accomplishing this if we stay or if we go? Should we be expected to fix things? Or should we just leave and let Iraq figure things out for themselves?
Cindy - clearly things have not gone as we originally planned. I do believe you are correct that our soldiers were not given the authority, the planning, and the tools accomplish their goals effectively. I suppose we could either blame Bush (or perhaps more accurately Cheney and Rumsfeld) for not giving our troops what they needed. Or we could blame the Iraqis for not getting their act together. Or we could blame history (and our lack of knowledge of it) for the tribal feudalism kept in check during Saddam's brutal totalitian control, yet unleased when we removed the dictator. In the end, however, we are where we are now.
So what do we do next?
Any and all intelligent opinion and discourse is welcome.
We can't even use force in questioning captured insurgents to get information.
What we need to do next is bring ALL our troops home, close our own borders and let the rest of the world fight it out amongst themselves. No more humanitarian aid, no more feeding guerillas and supplying the black market with food and medicine meant for the people, NOT the dictators.
As far as the outcome, until the Iraqi's can learn to evolve into the 21st century, there will be no peace. No matter what we do.
Certainly the country has become way too polarized under the 'uniter not a divider' administration.. And to expect any less from w's, surprises me --- regardless of your affiliation. This is the guy who expects his surgeon general to mention his name three times on every page of a speech.
The same same guy who will not let his administration talk to congress.
General Petraeus' report is going to be political regardless of which side of the political fence you sit on. Knowing that doesn't make you a liberal --- though not knowing that wouldn't necessarily name you conservative, but it might indicated something else.
This administration will not only go down as the worst in history, but the biggest spending, while America's infrastructure decays from lack of funds. Combat as such, has long been over and more troops really means more targets for concealed explosives. There is no such thing as an American victory in a foreign civil war. Remember Vietnam?
From what I read, Rumsfeld was big on the sleek fighting force concept, so tried to keep us tight and mobile rather than follow through on the shock-and-awe idea. He was probably right if in fact the Iraqi people would have simply greeted us as liberators and not decided to start infighting, but then that seems to be a wholely unrealistic expectation in retrospect.
What happens to Iraq? Do they "get their act together?" Do they break out in full-fledged civil war? Does that civil war spread to the surrounding countries? Does Iran take advantage of the chaos to either take over Iraq (probably not likely) or more fully assert its influence in the region (which they have already started)? Does al quaida rush into the void (have they already)? Do the Iraqi people band together against al quaida?
These are tough questions. Do you think Congress and the President are asking themselves these questions or just playing politics to position themselves for the 2008 elections?
Cindy: You say things are getting better over there as a result of the surge. You're aware, of course, that the civilian death toll rose 33% in July over June, are you not? Given yesterday's slaughter in this peaceful nation it's possible that the August toll will be even higher.
What has happened is that the insurgents and terrorists have simply move out of the areas where the troops are congregated (thus it's more peaceful in Anbar province) and moved to where the troops are not. It is not the soldiers or their performance that is the problem here anyway. Our troops have performed well doing whatever they've been asked to do. The problem is that there has to be political progress by the Iraqi government and this has not happened.
Essentially our troops (and hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqis) are dying while their government essentially sips tea by the pool on their vacation, while their leaders go to places like Iran and kiss up to the source of many of the terrorists. Without action on the political front nothing our troops do will be enough. The terrorists will simply move to where the troops aren't as they just did, and continue to murder people.
As for the funding, unless I slipped into a time warp recently, up until mid January the funding decisions were in the hands of Republicans who gave Bush anything he asked for.....a blank check with no accountability. Surely you're not saying that his own party short-changed our troops in the field are you?
thanks for permission to do generalizations
Why is it, conservatives --- regardless of the issue, will not discuss it, but will respond with:
blah blah blah Clinton, so la te da Clinton. and if you yada yada yada Clinton.
Even if Clinton told his staff they had to mention his name 10 times a page in speeches and no one could testify to congress about oral sex. It does not absolve what Bush is doing. BTW I thought the topic was Bush.
How about starting a topic: "How corrupt was Bill Clinton" which would have alot of traction, since he did commit his share of corruption
Undoubtedly, the next election is on the minds of those in Congress who are up for re-election as well as those who are running for office for the first time.
What is even more troublesome is that it doesn't seem like the best authorities on Muslims, Kurds, Islam and life in the region are being brought into the discussion at all (with the exception of a few smattered here and there on The Pundit Hour- and I do mean few) and this has been the norm for the current administration.
The plain and simple facts are that the Iraqi government now in power is committing a genecide far more foul than anything Hussein ever thought possible, and with our aid. I learned much of this from a highly decorated veteran of the front-lines in this war who recently returned and a Pentagon official, both of whom shall remain nameless for obvious reasons. Also, while there was no concentration of Al Qaeda in Iraq at the time of our invasion, there is now a significant presence there.
We must get out now before the mess we made gets messier still. I was horrified to learn that all of the presidential candidate front-runners are for a continuing presence in that area. While I believe we have an obligation to clean up the mess, I don't believe we currently have the capability to do so due to the intensity of the civil war resulting from our occupation. I believe we should finance peace-keeping troops from the U.N. to go in and try to establish peace for these unfortunate people. Patriotic liberal - oxymoron?
This is the state of thinking that this debacle has brought our nation to. This administration has entangled us in such a quagmire, so deeply and tightly, that it is almost impossible to find a viable solution without wanting to crawl completely back into our home, shutter the windows and doors, put our hands to our ears and hum.
Also, the utter lack of imagination and integrity in some of our citizenry has denigrated the possibility and success of compromise and dialogue (sic LL's Liberals = Losers theory).
How sad. I agree with the POV that Petraeus has been set up, but he knew that would happen right from the beginning when he accepted this position. BTW, where's our "war czar" in all this?
You brought Clinton up when you talk about Bush's executive privledge. The two are intertwined because the case law is clinton. The issue was about Iraq and you just bash Bush. I assume you just run away every time someone scares you. Here is my point. We can continue to debate bush and whether we should have gone to Iraq and it will get us nowhere. We are there and where should we go from here. The fact is Al Queda is there now. We should fight them wherever they are Iran, Irag, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Just hiding under a rock will not help our national security.
First question: Have you been to Iraq? Personally, I'd like a front row analysis of the situation.
Second question: I understand you work for the federal government. What is your job with the feds?
I see us with two major choices:
1) Stay and fight to keep Al Qaeda, Iran, etc. from making Iraq their personal incubator for terrorist training, or
2) Leave now and let Iraq figure out how to save their country from Al Qaeda, Iran, etc.
Each has massive ramifications. There are "probably right" and "probably wrong" ways to go about each. For example, if we stay, is our current strategy sufficient to do the job? Or should we suck it up and send 300,000 troops in to overwhelm them? If we leave, should we rush out the door or ensure some form of sustainable government (good or bad) is in place before we leave?
There are right and wrong ways to fight and to leave. What strategies have the best chance for success as we move forward?
I guess I brought up nuclear war too, because another president did that. Your stretch to bring Clinton in this so you can rationalize bush's flaws doesn't mesh. Say what you will about loving bush, about generalizing... but I did not bring up Clinton.
Most all the 911 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq--- where are we in a screwed up war.
THE DOCTRINE: United States Domination of the world Political and Economic situation.
The STRATEGY: Control the production and distribution of energy resources.
The BATTLEFIELD: The world.
The PRIZE: wealth of nations.
The neo conservatives, and believe me I want to say American Nazi, but will not out of respect for people who were destroyed for their doctrine of domination, cannot allow the USA to withdraw from Iraq. That breaks the spear into the oil field of the middle east. The Neo Cons cannot allow us to leave Iraq, because we loose the foothold for taking Iran, and unless Russia becomes a non socialist nation, Chechneya, and the Caspian Regions.
The DOCTRINE: American World Domination.
The OPPOSITION: The world.
the REALITY: Us, 3 hundred million, Them, 6 thousand Million.
and the quagmire
Appreciate you good comments and article. As far as what to do now we need to keep in mind that the option of staying to fight Al Queda is a self perpetuating type of thing. As long as we are over there it will continue to draw more people into the Al Queda structure. There were very few Al Queda in Iraq under Saddam and they've moved in and recruited many more according to our own intelligence. There is not reason to believe that this will not continue.
The other option you mention, to let the Iraq people figure how to stave off Iran, etc. is incomplete. If we are out of there it is reasonable to assume that others in the regions with a great deal of vested interest will start to involve themselves, such as Saudi Arabia. Obviously, they have no incentive to do so when Uncle Sam will furnish the money and the dead bodies for them.
The question you do not ask is how long can the United States afford to spend the lives of our young people and twelve billion dollars a month on this fiasco without serious damage to our own country, the country which is the primary responsibility of the U S government?
I would submit that we are at that point and that the nine trillion dollar national debt requires interest service that is effectively eating our dollars like a rabbit in a lettuce patch. The country is being divided over this action and animosity and distrust is rampant.
It is striking to me that the number of people who insist the "surge" is going to do the job never mention that we must have operated for several years without the common sense to bring enough people to the party and that they are still taking the word of the person responsible for this shortcoming without question!
I'm afraid that what will be done is to punt. Just put off failure or success and then blame the next administration! Stalling and defending that stall is better, in the eyes of any politician who might possibly have to share in the blame, than to take the risk of any action which might prove decisive, one way or another!
I would hope that this action, if nothing else, would establish for the foreseeable future, that if you want to go to war then do so and forget about the BS of "regime change" and other war characteristics failing to amount to a full fledge war with an decisive victory, followed by martial law and a military occupation as everything is changed which precipitated the war, as was done in Japan and Germany.
Asking soldiers to fight a war and not hurt civilians, etc. or not to pursue that war as far as is needed, and providing the number of troops needed is folly! Religious places were not sacrosanct from bombing in WW II, nor were cities. If all that is really wanted is to take out a dictator, there are better ways than war.
Perhaps another lesson is don't start an elective war unless you have "the army you'd like to have" for the purpose. Rumsfeld was the architect of this folly and Bush kept him out of stubbornness for far too long.
Thanks!
I must thank you for your well thought out and well written comments. You eloquently state and support your case. And you obviously care deeply.
I suspect your suspicions that we will punt into the next Administration are accurate. But then again, it may not be possible to resolve the situation within the next year and a half anyway. Either way, the next President/VP, Secretaries of Defense/State, etc. will have to deal with it in one way or another. I can't foresee him (or her) doubling the amount of troops, and anything less of a "surge" seems cosmetic at best. I fear the situation cannot be resolved without additional, and vastly escalating, bloodshed...ours and the Iraqis.
One thing that does appear lost on the rest of the world is that we do try our hardest not to hurt civilians and avoid damaging holy places. The world also seems to miss the fact that for every one accidental killing of a civilian we do, there are hundreds of Iraqi civilians killed on purpose by the suicide bombers. While we try to protect mosques, they don't seem to have any qualms about bombing some of their own most sacred shrines. I fail to understand the blinders they, and we, put on when reviewing events.
The neighboring nations obviously have a stake in the outcome in Iraq. Our presence, like Saddam's before us, keeps some at bay while stimulating others. Our departure will definitely have an impact on their actions as well. The true difficulty, however, is determining which of our actions will make the situation worse...or better.
Just curious what you all think about it.
Then they try to bring up Clinton like that justifies anything.
My QUESTION to them is WHERE ARE THE WMDs? The supposed reason we entered Iraq to begin with was to stop Saddam from using WMDs. To this date none have been found, or is the "Liveral Media" hiding them to keep us from knowing they ever existed?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or am I mistaken???
Also no one took into account that Iraq is a tribal society not anything like what we have been raised in here. Mix in tribal and religious differences and what a mess before we ever entered Iraq. Saddam was Sunni, why do you think he killed so many Shiite and Kurds? It was tribal. Mix in Al Queda and then it gets even more messed up with us in the middle of it all as invaders not liberators.
Who has the answer to what should we do...NOT ME!!! I said before we went in that our President and everyone around him were not telling us the truth, didn't take a lie detector to see that nor to be a genius. If you challenged them you were branded as unpartriotic or attacked in whatever way they could bring to discredit you.
If believing that the President and his gang told the truth and we should be in Iraq you want to label me as LIBERAL then I accept the title with honor and say you are only hiding your head where the sun don't shine and it smells like an outhouse!
As for what the general will say in September...is rather obvious from what he is saying right now. Some success is following the "SURGE", which should be called a build up not surge...our troups do their jobs, I support them not the politicians who put them in harms way because of lies. Al Queda moves and adapts as we adapt in the field but to say we are fighting them there to keep them from coming here is BullS***!
Think about it our southern border has been, still is porous. How many Mexicans cross into the U.S. each day? Who is to say others have not entered that way as well. Who is to say that we don't have hidden cells right here right now setting up or ready to create mayhem at anytime.
I realize what I have gone into isn't what you asked but hey, is a free country or am I living in a dream??? Will the FBI or some other secret agency be knocking on my door taking me away in the dead of night to a back room no one knows about? If it happened who would know? For that matter would one of my Conservative fellow Gather members even care that I disappeared? Would they question? If I were labeled an enemy combatant and held without counsel for years? Would any of them speak up and question why a fellow citizen was held in such a way to keep him or her from speaking out against our government and their lies to us?
Oh well, just my two cents worth... :o)
Suzanne F. It appears that Cheney is quite intelligent and capable of understanding the complexities of the region. Certainly he was correct at the time, and just as certainly he managed to change his mind after 9/11. My own theory about why we invaded Iraq is a simple one, and not reliant on unproven conspiracy theories. Number 1: We didn't like Saddam Hussein; Number 2: After 9/11 we got a free pass from the world to invade Afghanistan; Number 3: Hey, we're already there, why don't we just bop next door, take out Saddam, and set up a nice little Democracy there so we can a) get one up on dear old Dad, and b) become the US's most revered President. Ah, but perhaps this is a topic for another thread.
I pride myself on being an Independent, though others have branded me either a Liberal or a Conservative depending on which sentence they read of my writings (rarely am I branded too far in either direction by anyone who has actually read my work).
The concept behind this article was to get an idea of what people thought we should do beyond Petraeus' September progress report. While both sides of the political spectrum have commented, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of answers. We seem to be concluding that 1) Iraq is a mess, and 2) it won't get resolved in this Administration.
I wonder what guidance we can offer the next Administration. The Democrats seem to be leaning toward either 1) pull us out asap, or 2) pull us out in a responsible manner. The Republicans (with the exception of Ron Paul) seem to be leaning toward staying the course (though perhaps doing it better?). Either way the next President gets to arrive late to the banquet, yet gets stuck paying the tab.
"As far as the outcome, until the Iraqi's can learn to evolve into the 21st century, there will be no peace. No matter what we do."
Since they have no desire to 'evolve', but only to worship a sorry-assed tin god like allah, we should leave them to butcher each other instead of killing and maiming misguided American youth in Big Dick's quest for even more fortune.
I'm actually Liberally Independant...neither Republican nor Demacrat...
I don't let either party make my decisions for me if I make a mistake I make it without help from them and freely admit to having made it. I just think if you disagree with a Republican they are fast on the name calling to label you as LIBERAL. They seem not to be on the whole able to listen just to follow party dogma to the letter and recite the same old garbage over and over.
Again my opinion from observation of the animal in the wild so to speak...lol
:o)
I see a great danger to being there, and have decided to step over to the Left, and make as much noise as Possible. There is only one reasonable position, in my view. It is absolute resistance to the far right. They must not be allowed to advance another inch.
He has become strikingly cautious, avoiding on-the-record comments on many politically contentious issues. Shunning generalizations on the war in interviews, he lays out colored charts and graphs that show falling numbers of suicide attacks, other bombings and civilian casualties, when comparing January's figures with those in June and July.
But he eludes anything that might signal what broader conclusions he will be carrying to Washington in September.
His caution extends to the most fundamental question: whether the war can still be won. "Obviously, what we're going to try and do is win it," he says.
"What we're trying to do right now is generate enough HOPE to give it a chance. But the problem is, it's likely to muddle along for quite a long time."
I say, HOPE IS NOT A FREAKIN' PLAN!!!
I don't expect him to deliver anything constructive and just more of the same BS as stated above.
peace,gayle in the other WA
I think Petraeus will say there is progress, but I hope he offers more than just "stay the course." Even if the decision is to stay there "until the job is done" there does seem to be ample opportunity to make some major strategy changes (or even substantial tweaks) that will show that we are learning how to do this better.
As for his job - my gut feel is that he doesn't give a hoot about his job. He'll serve until he is relieved by this President or possibly until the next President takes office. Then he will get a promotion and retire with his pension and write a book, knowing that others will take the blame for the mess that came before him, and others could very well still be dealing with the situation after he's gone.
I think your analysis is accurate. And I too hope we've learned from this, though ironically there was lots of talk today about whether Iran is next. Let's just hope it's just the media throwing chum into the shark pool for fun and it's not seriously on the table.
An analogy: In a past life (figuratively, not literally) I was a marine biologist. I personally thought some of Greenpeace's tactics at the time were excessive, and even criminal (ramming whaling ships, etc.). I did, however, understand that there was a role that they played - mainly to keep the issues on the front burner and perhaps to keep the heat turned up. But I knew that there was also a role for my type, which was to sit down with both sides, perhaps slap them both across the face to get their attention, then proceed to find a solution. And that solution is usually not in either party's best interest, though it is usually in the best interest of the "grander good" (i.e., the whales, the people, the environment, etc.).
In politics the two sides often stake out far opposite positions because they believe the people are too uninformed and/or too single-issue oriented to tell the difference between them. So if one is for it, the other is usually against it on principle. [I mean, how many people are actually "for" abortion, in that they would go out and advocate women to have them on a whim? Similarly, does anyone really want to deny health care to little children (and their parents)? Of course not.] To me, the "you're either with me or agin me" is pure folly, yet that's what they so often do. The use of the term "moderates" for those willing to listen to both sides is particularly telling.
I choose to demand each side put their facts on the table for all to see, then have each side defend their point of view with evidence instead of platitudes. Sometimes they will drop their guard long enough to see they really aren't that far apart. I realize this comes off as naive to some, and I understand that it is unrealistic in certain situations, but I believe it is in this way that we actually can get things done.
I actually am glad Petraeus is being cautious in his public statements. Why give the media a chance to play partisan "whose got the ball" before his report is even written. But like you, I hope that he is being honest with himself and with the political decision makers about not only the current status but the prognosis for positive change.
This article is based on the presumption that his report will show a mixed bag, with which it is likely that the President will claim this shows progress that must received continued support. His phrase "But the problem is, it's likely to muddle along for quite a long time" is very telling. It is likely to be his overall conclusion in September. But then what? That is the question.
There was a time back in the day when i felt that "we the people" had an impact thru our visible protests on the street and specifically in D.C. ....tho' many still speak out publicly, the numbers have dwindled....from what i have observed, more people turn out to get the latest i-phone than attend a public demonstration!
"But then what?", you ask.....more of the same "likely to muddle along for quite a long time." .......but perhaps that will change depending on who is elected for President,eh?....
i don't comprehend war and am a longtime pacifist,so avoiding war at all cost and bringing our troops home are the only answers i am satisfied with.
peace,gayle
Frankly, I doubt much will change until we stop reelecting the same old crowd and start voting for people who compromise. I suggested in one of my earlier posts a "Declaration of Independents" who would insist partisanship be dumped in favor of making things happen. Naive, perhaps. But I still believe we (the people) need to stop expecting and rewarding pandering, then complain about it.
Nobody in the region wants to see a resurgent Persian Empire, particularly Saudi and other Sunni oil states. If Bush does not get suppression of dissent in Iraq so he can muscle the oil law then we will support the next best or default solution; the solution borne out by history and in place before this obscene power grab. We will support a brutal Sunni strongman. If the Shi'ia retain power Iran's star is on the rise. If the Sunni seize control they become part of the Saudi orbit. If the American occupying force is extended by draft to the 500,000 to 600,000 mark the puppet government will cooperate under sheer weight of numbers and dollars.
Bush intended with his "lean" fighting force to mire us in Iraq and leave the tough choices to the next Pres with the rightwing harpies seeking to put Jesus, "Democracy" and supply side economic first in Iraq courtesy of American bayonettes. There is no solution, plan or future until Bush and Co are out of power and completely discredited in the public mind. That's what must happen next.
I'm thinking, since none of Bush's benchmarks have been achieved, we won't hear much about that....Mostly they'll just say they that its beginning to work and that they need more time, and who's going to stand up to that?
I guess we'll see if the party-in-power has any power....
I do want to say that my father was a Viet Nam vet with one full tour and one partial tour as a pilot, so regardless of what I think of the war or of Bush, I support our troops 100% and I'm still sporting a magnetic yellow ribbon on my car. I only bring that up because you hardly see them any more - I think I'm about one in several hundred now - a sad commentary. Or has it perhaps become a political issue now? I hope not.
Sadly, those who disagree with policy are often accused of being unpatriotic or of not supporting our troops. Everyone I know supports the troops, they just differ on what that means. To some it means giving them all of the tools, weapons, other troops, and political diplomacy needed to complete their mission as effectively and as safely as possible. To others it means pulling them back here out of harms way completely. Unfortunately, to others it means rhetoric.
I am happy to say that I see many, many yellow ribbons on a daily basis. Perhaps it is being here in the Washington DC area, where many people are politically aware and/or are based here (there are many military installations around here, including of course the Pentagon). It is nice to see that the public, including those that are vehemently against the current war, now treat our soldiers better then we did to those returning from Vietnam. No matter our differences on opinion or strategy, we must remember that we are asking many of our fellow Americans to literally put their lives on the line for us. We owe them our respect, our support, and our utmost to keep them safe whether they are over there or back here.
Thanks for reminding us of what is important.
First, Lex and Cindy are good representatives of their ilk -- two of them and a whole lot more of us, who aren't blinded by the drivel coming from monkeybrains (I like that nickname) and his party of favorites in the White House. Apparently neither reads the paper much or they'd know what a very small minority they are speaking for. Not that it matters -- all voices should be heard.
And that means, ALL voices. And if they're going to speak (Lexxie) why not make it something intelligent instead of a few clever words strung together to make you look erudite (look it up) and smug, much like the so-called leaders of our country.
As for the Democrats doing anything about it, though, they're as spineless and impotent as the Bushwhackers are arrogant and autocratic. No, whAt we need are PEOPLE running our government. With all the criticism of Obama's lack of experience, that's the very reason I'm voting for him.
But I digress.
The troops haven't been funded well enough, Cindy? For God's sake, how many more billions of dolars would you have poured into a war that sucks it up like dry sand sucks up water? Billions that could be spent on, maybe, I dunno -- cancer research? AIDS research? Feeding starving children in any one ofd a hundred countroies, includug the US? Maybe sinking some money into our inner city schools? Anything but throwing good money after bad -- tell me, Lex & Cindy, just how do you think anything is EVER going to be resolved when NOTHING has changed in three years?
NOTHING HAS CHANGED -- car bombs are still killing innocents, the Iraqi police are still hapless and helpless for the most part, theor leaders are assasinated regularly, the Sunni and Shiites have been warring for centuries and will continue to do so long after all the rest of us have come and gone. Read the polls TAKEN IN IRAQ that reveal everything from displeasure at our being there, and wishing we would go home, to pure and savage hatred for anything American.
One of you please tell me -- when did God give it all up and turn over all the decision-making to the United States of America and the Babbling Bushwhacker? Since when do we have the ri9ght to decide how any other country in the world should be goverened but ours? You think the atrocities in Iraq under Sadam were awful? Look beyond your own noses at the squallor in America's most "fabulous" cities. Look at any of hundreds of countries for atrocities -- we can't fix them all, nor is anyone asking us to, last time I looked.
I do not advocate isolationism but I do think it's time we minded our own business and quit running around the world telling everyone else to do things our way -- 'cause we AIN'T doin' that keen a job! We've got more violent crime, drug abuse, child abuse, elder neglect, animal cruelty, obesity, stress, illness related to stress, pollution, undereducated adults, and waste, than most all other countries in the world COMBINED. We are hardly a role model for the world, and certainly not the ones to tell anyone else how to do much of anything.
As for the answer to the question David posed: I'm pretty much in agreement with your assessment. The good general is a puppet of his Bushwhacker boss and will file the report he's told to file. It will be full of lies, half-truths, inflated (or deflated) statistics, and written vaguely enough so that no one can prove him wrong or right, nor draw ant cobncllusions that the time has come to go from Iraq and let tham all just shoot, car-bomb, beat, stab, strangle, maim and kill one another as they so obviously enjoy doing -- these people LOVE TO FIGHT and have been partaking in that particular form of entertainment for about 6,000 years now. But there's NO reason to put our soldiers in the middle of it, it's long, lkong past time we took them out. This war was started for three reasons: for Junior to get revenge for daddy's having missed the chance to bury Sadam the first time, to protect Bushwhacker's oil interests, and to make himself a hee-ro since he missed his opportunity to do so while he was "enlisted," if you can call it that.
Has any ONE of the Bush family ever considered his or her country? In fact, how many relatives of Congressmen, Bushwhacker administration members, or anyone else related to government have gone to Iraq? You KNOW we would have heard about Senator So-andso's kid having been wounded or killed. Funny, we haven't heard any of those stories, have we?
So what do I think will happen? Nothing. As you said, military successes will be reported. Political successes will be nonexistent. Bush will paint a rosy picture. The Congress will talk and talk and talk.... This is my best guess. We will be in Iraq at least until the next president takes office.
What do I think we should do? I think many of the presidential candidates have a good handle on what should be done. We are a lightning rod in Iraq. All out civil war in Iraq is not good for Iraq or its neighbors. We need to do what should have been done in the first place - get the neighbors involved. Get other nations involved. And, if we could convince the Iraqis to separate into 3 states with a loose federal government, they could, as I think it was said by Sen Biden, get some breathing room, some time to get their own areas under control. We also need to convince them to get those oil revenues going and shared among all the Iraqis! People who have good jobs, electricity, and hope for a prosperous future have less tolerance for terrorists and sectarian violence. It can be done. Before we invaded, Sunni and Shia lived together as neighbors. They intermarried. That can happen again.
The trick is how to convince an Iraqi populace to get rid of a political leader they elected. Is there even a mechanism to do such a thing (think about how many President's we've removed from office, despite the common misgivings we have had about some of the people we elected)?
I think Petraeus will give a straight report, since so much is already out there. Frankly, there isn't anything he will say that we don't already publicly know or will know by then. He really has nothing to lose, as the politicians and media will likely do their best to pick-and-choose sound bites to exploit in both directions.
Perhaps Petraeus will surpise us all.
So, the same question applies - What are our next steps?