Tuesday, July 24, 2007

What Sept. benchmarks?

Do you recall way back in February when the entire Iraqi "surge" notion was being debated? Do you recall those "benchmarks" which were supposed to be met by September? Well, it's becoming increasingly obvious none of those benchmarks will be met. Do you suppose this will lead to serious discussion within the administration regarding withdrawing troops from Iraq?

Of course not. The notion is laughable.

The New York Times has a story this morning discussing military plans to retain significant forces in Iraq at least into 2009:

By Michael R. Gordon
Published: July 24, 2007

BAGHDAD, July 23 — While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The Reach of War

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.


Even just reading the opening three paragraphs above it is clear all that time the administration was talking about a "limited" surge and "reassessment" in the fall, it was well aware any real results would take years, if they came at all. The fix has been in from the start (yes, the administration lied about Iraq yet again, quelle surprise) -- no matter how grim the September assessment might be, there is no way the administration will not insist on continuing the occupation. To paraphrase another conservative icon, the only way we are going to get our troops home is if we "pry the war from (Bush's) cold, dead hands".

At this point, the only way troops might be brought home prior to 2009 is if Congress finally grows the cojones to insist upon it in funding bills (sending the same bills back when Bush vetoes them), or to defund the war entirely. Even then, it's uncertain the administration wouldn't simply appropriate the money anyway to carry on its glorious crusade.

3 comments:

x4mr said...

Well said, and you point to Liza's remarks over the course of many months about long term occupation, PNAC, etc.

I don't see us leaving, and the end game has to include Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

If ever measured by metrics perhaps only available to higher powers, we would learn that Iraq is worse than Vietnam. Think blood. Think money. Think physical and psychological carnage.

By the way, I love your blog, but you do realize you fly pretty high. I have no idea what traffic you get, but I can guess visitor characteristics.

Dummies not included, and I am not criticizing. Your blog operates at the level of distinguished professionals like Robert Reich.

He's famous as hell, so lots of smart folks show up at his place. How guys like you and me get such attention is another question. Perhaps we never do, but that's ok.

Sirocco said...

Heh ... I get some traffic. Not as much as you I wouldn't think, and certainly not as much as Framer. Nor should I.

Still, I find the writing cathartic. I hadn't done much (non-technical) writing for some time, since I stopped working at a newspaper 15 or so years ago.

So I am mostly spilling my thoughts on bytes for myself, and the fact there are some small number of people who read regularly (even if they don't post much or at all) is gratifying. Plus, the odd hit from Congressional IP addresses is amusing.

Regarding the end game, assuming (and it's not a very long stretch) we are in Iraq at least into 2009, it certainly within the realm of possibility we will engage in some form of military activity in Iran, Pakistan or both within the next 18 months. More than we already are, I mean -- if you don't think we have scouts across the border in both those countries, well ...

Afghanistan is a different issue. I can't see us leaving there, nor do I think we should. It really did serve as a base for the 9/11 attackers, and we really did have justification for invading. If we had focused our resources there instead of heeding the voices in our President's head vis-a-vis Iraq, I think we might be a long way down the road to having things turned around there.

x4mr said...

One more remark on blogging. I believe a trade-off exists between readership, comments solicited, and the sophistication of the stories.

Shorter, simpler, and more volatile content would attract more attention.

Reich sets up his camera and posts video-blogs of his talking head. I don't like that approach. I'd rather write. When and if I can get Premiere going, the content will be light years from a talking head.

I do however, take images very seriously, and plan to continue refining that skill, although I understand the bloggers who choose to remain pure text.

It may or may not surprise you that I can spend more time searching, crafting, and designing an image than it takes to write the story going with it.