Skip to content

The Day drinks the Petreaus Kool-Aid

In an effort to prove that they are very serious people, the Day has opined that despite its belief that we should end our military involvement in Iraq, we should not in fact end our military involvement in Iraq. We should, as the editorial is titled GIVE NEW IRAQ STRATEGY TIME.

This editorial deserves to be annotated, so rife is it with irrational thinking and ignorance of the facts. Let’s try to scrape the surface.

First, there’s the title. This is not a new Iraq Strategy. This is a strategy (the surge) that was announced in December of 2006 and, according to its proponents would bear fruit by this time. Keep in mind that the fruit it would bear would be political reconciliation- i.e., a stronger central government with more popular support. It has failed spectacularly on those terms. In any event, there is no new strategy-Petraeus is offering more of the same.

Now, the introduction, in which the editorialist notes that the good general is testifying on the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack, which as it acknowledges in the fourth paragraph, was and is entirely unrelated to the war in Iraq. So why make a connection that is acknowledged to be without foundation?

Then we have this:

What resulted was four years of terror bombings, bloodshed and revenge killings. Most ironically, al-Qaida, a non-factor in Iraq when the late Mr. Hussein was in power, now is a significant player and seeks to fuel the sectarian violence in hopes of handing the United States an embarrassing foreign policy failure in the Middle East. (Emphasis added)

It’s the line they’ve been pushing, of course, but couldn’t the Day do it’s homework and learn a little about the subject from non-propagandists. It might start here, (washington monthly), where it would find that al-Qaida’s presence in Iraq is miniscule, and it is not even clear that those calling themselves “Al-Qaida in Iraq” have any formal connection to Osama’s Al-Qaida. But why let facts get in the way of a good story line.

The Day goes on to tell us that:

At the local level, Sunni tribal leaders have worked with our nation’s forces to root out al-Qaida and other terrorist elements.

You mean these guys (see, Washington Post, In Iraq, a Perilous Alliance With Former Enemies)

U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation.

American generals insist they are not creating militias. In contracts with the U.S. military, the sheiks are referred to as “security contractors.” Each of their “guards” will receive 70 percent of an Iraqi policeman’s salary. U.S. commanders call them “concerned citizens,” evoking suburban neighborhood watch groups.

Yes, that’s right. We are busily arming people who have, until recently, been bowing our soldiers to bits. What could go wrong?

But the Day recognizes the problem, in a way, doesn’t it?

These Sunni tribal groups that our forces now work with by providing money and military aid could one day turn on the central government or other factions, generating the civil war the U.S. policy has sought to avoid.

Earth to Day: The Civil War has been raging for years. It just may be that we are now taking sides against the central government we created (while still supporting the central government-it gets so confusing, doesn’t it?). What a great position to be in-on both sides of a civil war in a country we refuse to understand.

Some more tidbits. According to the Day, Congress should drink more of the Kool-Aid the Day has been drinking because it supported the surge in the past. To the best of my recollection Congress had nothing to say in the matter. How convenient to forget how impotent is our Congress. In any event, the surge was “sold” on the terms I mentioned above, and it was to be judged based on its success exactly now. On the pre-announced terms, it has failed.

Like all the serious folks in Washington, the Day doesn’t appear to notice that the goal posts keep moving, and the rules keep changing. There are some constants that the Day should keep in mind: Everything they say is a lie, they can always find some general to be their front man (see, Powell, Colin and Thompson, Tommy) and their only goal is to run out the clock to leave someone else to clean up their mess.

Misdirections, a Republican specialty

I’ve been reading the blogs, etc., about the Petreaus testimony, and it appears to me that once again the Republicans have succeeded at something at which they excel: misdirection.

Many years ago now, the Sainted Ronald was caught red-handed selling weapons to the Iranians. That was a bad thing to do, perhaps warranting impeachment, but it was quickly forgotten when Ed Meese revealed that the money from the arms sales had gone to the Contras in Nicauragua, but the Great Man did not know about that. The acknowledged crime was quickly forgotten while everyone obsessed about whether Reagan knew about the transfers to the Contras. Meese knew just what he was doing-the scandal bogged down in further misdirections and obfuscations.

Now we argue about whether Petreaus’ statistics about violence levels, death rates, etc. are correct, while virtually ignoring that the escalation has clearly failed, judged on the terms by which it was sold. That is, there is no “political reconciliation”. Everyone admits that. But that fact is mostly ignored while we argue about irrelevant issues.

The RTM stays

This is strictly Groton news. The Charter Revision Commission voted not to abolish the RTM. We now go to the harder work of refashioning the Charter.

Of course, the overriding issue, as always, is the budget referendum. It will be interesting to see how things go on that issue.

Bush prepares to go out Cheney style

A few weeks ago I predicted we’d be hearing more about Bush’s plans to complete the destruction of the United States of America, starting with the environment, before he left office.

I was hardly going out on a limb. Anyone could have predicted it. Today we get a glimpse of some more of the damage Bush and his minions have in mind:

And now President Bush has his cabinet and staff busily writing far-reaching rules to keep his priorities on the environment, public lands, homeland security, health and safety in place long after the clock strikes midnight and his presidential limousine turns into a pumpkin.

Naturally, the Bushies have more plans for the environment. Why they have a special affinity for environmental destruction is anyone’s guess, but it appears to be first priority at this point. But of course, they have no intention of stopping there. They’ve already tried to undermine children’s health care. Who knows what further evil lurks in the heart of darkness.

A brief hiatus

My wife and I are off to Maine to a wedding. With any luck, I will not be in front of a computer again until Sunday night.

Mr. 9/11 exposed

This is all over the net, but it needs to be widely seen, from a documentary by Robert Greenwald:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0E0wfShJ58&v3[/youtube]

Surprisingly, Greenwald doesn’t mention that another reason Rudy put the command center near the World Trade Center was so he could have a comfortable place to commit GOP retroactively sanctioned adultery.

What report?

Apparently the question of the authorship of the Petreaus report has been settled. Originally, Petreaus was going to write it; then the White House was going to write it. Now, apparently, it will simply not be written:

In the latest twist to the ongoing saga over the Petraeus White House report, a senior military official tells the Washington Times today that there will actually be no report at all:

A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony,” the officer said.

The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.

These are people who learn there lessons. Recently a lot of folks have been talking about the suspect numbers (here and here, for example) that the war supporters have been throwing around. There will be nothing in anything Petreaus says that will be verifiable; it will all be the sort of slippery stuff that eludes authentication. This sort of testimony could be made to look foolish if:

1. The Democrats refuse to be cowed by the uniform and treat him as the Bush flunky that he has become; and

2. The individual Democrats decide to give up their TV time and use a skilled cross examiner to question Petreaus who is both informed and dogged.

I have no hope that the Democrats will expose this huckster. They will genuflect to his brass stars and vote to give him more time.

Americans already don’t believe Petreaus

In a recent post I hazarded the following guess about the American reaction to the Petreaus report:

My sense is that the truth has sunk in to the American people, and they’re not going to be convinced by anyone’s flimflam, no matter how many stars on his shoulder.

Looks like I was mostly right. According to a Rasmussen poll only 39% of the people in this country believe the report will reflect the general’s honest opinion. But of course, everyone in Washington will pretend that it does, even though they are probably almost as aware as the average American that the general is a shill.

The Times does guilt by association

The New York Times appears to have bestowed a new name on Norman Hsu. He is now Clinton Donor Norman Hsu. It matters not, of course, that there is not a whisper of a hint that Clinton has anything to do with whatever crimes Hsu may have committed.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Times would rechristen every corrupt person with such a prefix? How many new “Bush Donor”‘s would there be?

Democrats Brilliant Strategy: First surrender, then negotiate

I don’t pretend to be the world’s greatest lawyer, but I have learned a thing or two about negotiating in the years since I was sworn to the bar. One thing I learned, in fact, one thing I always sort of knew, is that you don’t do this:

With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”

That’s a little like telling the other attorney: “I would like you to pay my client $50,000.00, but if you say “No” I’ll probably take $20.” At first blush you might think that, though stupid, this approach is not so terrible. After all, you end up with $20K, don’t you? Well, no, you probably end up with 10. It is never smart to walk into negotiations with an opening declaration of weakness.

At least one Senator, our own Chris Dodd, who almosts redeems Connecticut from the shame that is Joe Lieberman, is having none of it:

“Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq you have lost this Democrat’s vote.

“Despite the fact that this has been the bloodiest summer of the war and report after report says that there has been little to no political progress, the White House continues to argue that their strategy is working.

“It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war.

“I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order.

“I urge my colleagues to join me and declare their opposition to this measure.”

Have the Democrats no collective memory? They were recently in the Senate minority. On what important issue did the merely declare an intent to filibuster and immediately win their point? I can’t remember a single instance. Yet they proactively surrender (is that an oxymoron?…quasi maybe) to an unannounced Republican filibuster on the most important issue before them. It is totally beyond them to consider that if they make the Republicans actually filibuster, and if they frame that filibuster as the obstruction of the American will that it is, that they just might succeed, or at the very least get a compromise that moves in their direction, rather than moves at warp speed away from it.

Where are the other present Senators, would be Presidents on this issue? Their running on leadership, it would be nice to see some. John Edwards has been great on this, but he’s not in the Senate.