Petraeus can't take the pressure
After a month of the Bush administration and its Republican allies staving off today's political pressure by transferring all that weight to Petraeus' report in September, Petraeus says "Don't put this on me."
So, Petraeus is now engaging in Friedman units.
(I always had my doubts about this "See you in September" rhetoric.)
Three months into the job, General David Petraeus says it is difficult to predict how well the surge of troops in Baghdad will succeed before the full number of troops arrive and that he would not have a definitive answer about prospects for stability by September, when he is to report back to Congress.....
Come September, I don’t think we’ll have anything definitive in September (although) certainly we’ll have some indicators on the political side in Iraq.”
So, Petraeus is now engaging in Friedman units.
(I always had my doubts about this "See you in September" rhetoric.)
posted by mikevotes at
4:05 PM
6 Comments:
See you in January '09.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 4:21 PM
I agree with reality-based educator. Short of dramatic congressional action (de-funding, de-authorization of "war" authority,... impeachment) -- none of which will happen -- we're in this until some time in '09 at least. From there, we're looking at another half century of both involvement in the region and rehabilitating our standing in the international community.
Petraeus will, at some point, have to decide to continue pissing up a rope for the Commander Guy, or honorably resign. If he sticks it out to '09, he may be another Tenent... "privately I said it was all bullshit, but publicly I couldn't muster the backbone."
Finally, I think we have four more weeks before continuing to call this gimmick a "surge" becomes a punchline rather than a strategy. I had a Subaru that could surge from 0-60mph in 30 seconds...
By
-epm, at 4:34 PM
Reality, exactly. They only have to dance two more of these deadlines to make it through Bush's admin.
....
EPM, I generally agree with you, and I don't see a Congressional move that severe coming, however, a serious turn in opinion that prompts Republicans to bash the war and the President coming into the election next year could have some slight impact on his free hand.
And, what no one seems to appreciate is that Petraeus has every reason to portray success. The responsibility for the war from this phase on has been successfully put under his name by the White House. For him to honestly assess failure would require destroying himself, his career, his legacy, and repudiating the counterinsurgency theory he has believed in.
At this point he would have to have a pretty big "something else" to blame.
By
mikevotes, at 6:18 PM
"...a serious turn in opinion..."
I don't know about this. What is the public approval for the Iraq War? 30%... something like that? I don't know how much lower it can go, given that 30% of the population probably blindly supports ANYTHING Bush wants, and conversely, blindly opposes ANYTHING a Democrat advocates. Also consider the current crop of Republicans are in office due at least in part to the viral politics of Tom DeLay and his corrupt kind.... These are not your father's Republicans. I simply don't see a veto proof consensus ever coming from this pack of goons. Dear God, just look at their standard-bearers in the Repub candidates for president!
I agree with your point on Petraeus needing to sell success -- real or imagined. He put his neck on the line with repeated public statements of support for the President's variation on a theme, commonly known as The Surge.
Petraeus has a few escape hatches, I suppose. If the Iraqi government collapses, or if they vote for the removal of foreign forces, he could blame that. If Bush continues to refuse accountability and the standoff with Congress on funding drags on, he could blame Congress for mucking up the works.
By
-epm, at 8:07 PM
RX: Gen Petraeus
Take 2.5 Friedmans with a large glass of water until symptoms subside.
Next appointment: September 1, 2008
By
Anonymous, at 8:39 PM
Mustard, That's pretty damn funny.
..
EPM, I realized your point while I was writing, but the anti war sentiment could grow much louder if not much broader. Right now people in the main are against the war, but they seem to say it reluctantly and quietly.
And blaming the Iraqis is the way out for everyone. (except the Iraqis.) The Dems don't have to really be againt the war/troops/military, the Repubs get to vindicate their years of support, and the White House can get rid of the "should we have gone in?" question and the "poor execution/Paul Bremer" questions by saying we'll never know.
Blaming the Iraqis is the likely centerpoint resolution to all this.
(I don't see how the Iraqis can make the political mooves necessary to moot this argument.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home